Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!

Religions > Atheism > Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Yang, AthD h.c"
Date:	02 Apr 2007 10:01:45 AM
Object:	Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!

"The Surge is Succeeding"
-Fred Stone, 3/11/2007
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/02/thinkfast-april-2-2007/
Iraqi figures estimate civilian deaths in violence across the country
rose by 13% last month, despite the security crackdown in Baghdad.
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3245 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	06 Apr 2007 08:31:58 AM

Fred Stone wrote:

For example, one study found range of equilibrium climate sensitivity
to a doubling atmospheric CO2 of:
1.5 to 4.5 degC for an 80% confidence level
0.7 to 5.1 degrees C for 95% confidence level

You can make those figures as precise as you want. They are just
bookends.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I'm just trying to explain hypothesis testing. Tell how it's wrong.

Now explain to us how the American Enterprise Institute is somehow
more credible than an international panel of 2500 expert scientific
reviewers and 1300 authors from over 130 countries.

Explain to *me* why an organization that is governed by dictators and
thugs is more credible than one that is supported by the free
enterprise system.

Evasion noted.

Please tell us how this squares with the BBC expose regarding
ExxonMobil's offer to pay any scientist $25k for papers critical of
the IPCC findings. Tell us please how this isn't ***** backwards.

Please tell me why Exxon is such a demonic entity.

I don't think they're demonic. Your strawmen are annoying.
They provide immense benefit in the form of wealth, energy, jobs. But Exxon,
like all corporations, are driven by profit and any benefits are strictly a
side effect of this motivation. Anythin g that does not square with the
bottom line is going to be ignored or opposed.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	06 Apr 2007 08:01:28 AM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:u8adnd_4qrtV1ovbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

For example, one study found range of equilibrium climate
sensitivity to a doubling atmospheric CO2 of:
1.5 to 4.5 degC for an 80% confidence level
0.7 to 5.1 degrees C for 95% confidence level

You can make those figures as precise as you want. They are just
bookends.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I'm just trying to explain hypothesis testing. Tell how it's wrong.

When your hypothesis testing is done with computer models that are based
on the theory that you're supposedly testing, all you're doing is
chasing your own tail. You can put numbers in and get numbers out all
day long, but that doesn't mean that your numbers are any good.
All the really good hard data you've got goes back less than a century.
It gets less and less reliable as you go farther back, and we're talking
about allegedly detecting a "signal" of a half a degree per century out
of "noise" that can cover several tens of degrees.
The computer models can't even account for the Medeival Warm Period or
the Little Ice Age.
Now, on top of that, you claim to be able to assign cause and effect
relationships to the anthropogenic production of CO2 versus all the
other factors?

Now explain to us how the American Enterprise Institute is somehow
more credible than an international panel of 2500 expert scientific
reviewers and 1300 authors from over 130 countries.

Explain to *me* why an organization that is governed by dictators and
thugs is more credible than one that is supported by the free
enterprise system.

Evasion noted.

Oh, the irony.

Please tell us how this squares with the BBC expose regarding
ExxonMobil's offer to pay any scientist $25k for papers critical of
the IPCC findings. Tell us please how this isn't ***** backwards.

Please tell me why Exxon is such a demonic entity.

I don't think they're demonic. Your strawmen are annoying.

MY strawmen are annoying? YOU are the one who claims that every source
that is critical of AGW is in thrall to the oil industry.

They provide immense benefit in the form of wealth, energy, jobs. But
Exxon, like all corporations, are driven by profit and any benefits
are strictly a side effect of this motivation. Anythin g that does not
square with the bottom line is going to be ignored or opposed.

You greens keep telling us out of one side of your mouth how
environmentalism is supposed to be so profitable, and out of the other
side of your mouth you complain about the profit motive. Your socialist
agenda couldn't be more clear.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	06 Apr 2007 03:37:52 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:u8adnd_4qrtV1ovbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

For example, one study found range of equilibrium climate
sensitivity to a doubling atmospheric CO2 of:
1.5 to 4.5 degC for an 80% confidence level
0.7 to 5.1 degrees C for 95% confidence level

You can make those figures as precise as you want. They are just
bookends.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I'm just trying to explain hypothesis testing. Tell how it's wrong.

Ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years.

Now, on top of that, you claim to be able to assign cause and effect
relationships to the anthropogenic production of CO2 versus all the
other factors?

Atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature go lock step with a high degree
of correlation. Are you implying that the warming causes the CO2?

Now explain to us how the American Enterprise Institute is somehow
more credible than an international panel of 2500 expert scientific
reviewers and 1300 authors from over 130 countries.

Explain to *me* why an organization that is governed by dictators
and thugs is more credible than one that is supported by the free
enterprise system.

Evasion noted.

Oh, the irony.

I asked you to explain something. You evaded with another strawman.

Please tell us how this squares with the BBC expose regarding
ExxonMobil's offer to pay any scientist $25k for papers critical of
the IPCC findings. Tell us please how this isn't ***** backwards.

Please tell me why Exxon is such a demonic entity.

I don't think they're demonic. Your strawmen are annoying.

MY strawmen are annoying? YOU are the one who claims that every source
that is critical of AGW is in thrall to the oil industry.

*****. I very specifically cited the American Enterprise Institute and
the investigation by the BBC into ExxonMobil's PR campaign.

They provide immense benefit in the form of wealth, energy, jobs. But
Exxon, like all corporations, are driven by profit and any benefits
are strictly a side effect of this motivation. Anythin g that does
not square with the bottom line is going to be ignored or opposed.

All I'm saying is that what interests business (profit) is only one small
part of what interests people. Sure people want to make money and have as
many creature comforts as they can afford, but they also want to breathe
clean air and drink clean water, etc. etc. Unless these things are important
to a business' bottom line, business won't do it. Why spend millions of
dollars in proper disposal when it can be dumped in a river? Why install
scrubbers on stacks when the air is free?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	06 Apr 2007 03:41:19 PM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:McydnQZn56QGMovbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:u8adnd_4qrtV1ovbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

For example, one study found range of equilibrium climate
sensitivity to a doubling atmospheric CO2 of:
1.5 to 4.5 degC for an 80% confidence level
0.7 to 5.1 degrees C for 95% confidence level

You can make those figures as precise as you want. They are just
bookends.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I'm just trying to explain hypothesis testing. Tell how it's wrong.

Ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years.

The half-degree-per-century apparant warming trend goes back at least
five hundred years.
http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?
DSP=content&ContentID=17275

Now, on top of that, you claim to be able to assign cause and effect
relationships to the anthropogenic production of CO2 versus all the
other factors?

Atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature go lock step with a high
degree of correlation. Are you implying that the warming causes the
CO2?

Yes. CO2 rise lags warming by about 800 years in those ice cores you
mentioned. Why would that trend suddenly stop in 1900? Why would the
Little Ice Age suddenly *end* in 1900?

Now explain to us how the American Enterprise Institute is somehow
more credible than an international panel of 2500 expert
scientific reviewers and 1300 authors from over 130 countries.

Explain to *me* why an organization that is governed by dictators
and thugs is more credible than one that is supported by the free
enterprise system.

Evasion noted.

Oh, the irony.

I asked you to explain something. You evaded with another strawman.

That's no strawman. That's a rejoinder. That "international panel" is
hand-picked by dictators and thugs.
http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?
DSP=content&ContentID=17238

Please tell us how this squares with the BBC expose regarding
ExxonMobil's offer to pay any scientist $25k for papers critical
of the IPCC findings. Tell us please how this isn't ***** backwards.

Please tell me why Exxon is such a demonic entity.

I don't think they're demonic. Your strawmen are annoying.

MY strawmen are annoying? YOU are the one who claims that every
source that is critical of AGW is in thrall to the oil industry.

*****. I very specifically cited the American Enterprise Institute
and the investigation by the BBC into ExxonMobil's PR campaign.

The AEI were paying for qualified reviewers to critique the IPCC report,
which is exactly what you'd expect any legitimate policy outfit to do.
It's only your lefty spin that makes that out to be some sort of hit
job. That was covered long ago. Why do keep sticking with your spin even
when it's been rebutted?

They provide immense benefit in the form of wealth, energy, jobs.
But Exxon, like all corporations, are driven by profit and any
benefits are strictly a side effect of this motivation. Anythin g
that does not square with the bottom line is going to be ignored or
opposed.

All I'm saying is that what interests business (profit) is only one
small part of what interests people. Sure people want to make money
and have as many creature comforts as they can afford, but they also
want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, etc. etc. Unless
these things are important to a business' bottom line, business won't
do it. Why spend millions of dollars in proper disposal when it can be
dumped in a river? Why install scrubbers on stacks when the air is
free?

One reason is that your customers expect it.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	07 Apr 2007 01:19:51 AM

Fred Stone wrote:

Ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years.

The half-degree-per-century apparant warming trend goes back at least
five hundred years.

Fine, but I'm talking about the lockstep CO2-mean temperature correlation
from ice cores going back 300k years.

Now, on top of that, you claim to be able to assign cause and effect
relationships to the anthropogenic production of CO2 versus all the
other factors?

Atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature go lock step with a high
degree of correlation. Are you implying that the warming causes the
CO2?

Yes. CO2 rise lags warming by about 800 years in those ice cores you
mentioned.

That may seem to imply causation, but that's not necessarily the case. It
just means there are other factors afloat besides CO2. Warming does precede
CO2 buildup as you say and either is an initiator of it or they have common
triggers. The final several thousand years of warming continue because of
the CO2. It's a feedback loop.
Regardless, my point was originally that hypothesis testing is characterized
by confidence levels. You said (text above): "When your hypothesis testing
is done with computer models..." So this testing was based on real data, not
a simulation.
The paper that appeared in Science is here:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Why would that trend suddenly stop in 1900? Why would the
Little Ice Age suddenly *end* in 1900?

Some would say this is due to the rise in atmospheric anthropogenic CO2.
Some would say it is just part of the normal cycle. The problem with this is
that CO2 levels are currently 30% higher than anything observed in older
core ice. Methane is 130% higher. The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is
200x faster than observed in older core ice.
And the current increase is coinciding with a corresponding increase in mean
global temperature. And guess what, there is no lag this time. Why? Good
question. But one obvious possibility is that the natural triggers that led
to the end of ice ages in the past didn't happen in this case. This time,
CO2 worked on its own.

Now explain to us how the American Enterprise Institute is
somehow more credible than an international panel of 2500 expert
scientific reviewers and 1300 authors from over 130 countries.

Explain to *me* why an organization that is governed by dictators
and thugs is more credible than one that is supported by the free
enterprise system.

Evasion noted.

Oh, the irony.

I asked you to explain something. You evaded with another strawman.

That's no strawman. That's a rejoinder. That "international panel" is
hand-picked by dictators and thugs.

You deliberately paint the IPCC with Nazi stripes and then counter it with
the AEI dressed in red-white-and-blue and kissing babies. I'm not so naive
to think either characterization is true. Then you basically ask how someone
could trust Hitler over Superman. Yeah. It's a strawman allright.
And I read your article. Reiter makes some pretty wild leaps of faith and
bases his whole thesis on it. I'm not saying that the IPCC is the Holy Grail
of science, but to believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of
scientists to bring down capitalism is crazy talk.

The AEI were paying for qualified reviewers to critique the IPCC
report, which is exactly what you'd expect any legitimate policy
outfit to do.

That may be the way of policy, but not science, which is how they are
posturing the reports to be. But some in academia make a good living from
it. Timothy Ball is one. Unfortunately, he is about as credible as Behe.

It's only your lefty spin that makes that out to be
some sort of hit job. That was covered long ago. Why do keep sticking
with your spin even when it's been rebutted?

You rebutted? I must have missed it.

All I'm saying is that what interests business (profit) is only one
small part of what interests people. Sure people want to make money
and have as many creature comforts as they can afford, but they also
want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, etc. etc. Unless
these things are important to a business' bottom line, business won't
do it. Why spend millions of dollars in proper disposal when it can
be dumped in a river? Why install scrubbers on stacks when the air is
free?

One reason is that your customers expect it.

That's a great reason, but there is the fatal disconnect there in almost all
cases. How do customers know what the environmental impact is of the
products they buy? How then does a customer judge the results then of this
"expectation"?
And is this the case? Do customers "expect" that the products that they buy
have low environmental impact? I certainly don't. So I try to be proactive
and research products such as laundry detergent. I bring my own bags to the
grovery store instead of using the non-biodegradeable plastic commonly used.
I know I'm part of a small minority that takes a "slogan" to heart. So I
really doubt that many people really care until their water is contaminated
with PCBs and they are a cancer hotspot.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	07 Apr 2007 06:54:52 AM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:JZCdnVXLK-ucpYrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

Ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years.

The half-degree-per-century apparant warming trend goes back at least
five hundred years.

Fine, but I'm talking about the lockstep CO2-mean temperature
correlation from ice cores going back 300k years.

Now, on top of that, you claim to be able to assign cause and
effect relationships to the anthropogenic production of CO2 versus
all the other factors?

Atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature go lock step with a high
degree of correlation. Are you implying that the warming causes the
CO2?

Yes. CO2 rise lags warming by about 800 years in those ice cores you
mentioned.

That may seem to imply causation, but that's not necessarily the case.
It just means there are other factors afloat besides CO2. Warming does
precede CO2 buildup as you say and either is an initiator of it or
they have common triggers. The final several thousand years of warming
continue because of the CO2. It's a feedback loop.

Regardless, my point was originally that hypothesis testing is
characterized by confidence levels. You said (text above): "When your
hypothesis testing is done with computer models..." So this testing
was based on real data, not a simulation.

The paper that appeared in Science is here:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Why would that trend suddenly stop in 1900? Why would the
Little Ice Age suddenly *end* in 1900?

Some would say this is due to the rise in atmospheric anthropogenic
CO2.

Some would say it is just part of the normal cycle. The problem with
this is that CO2 levels are currently 30% higher than anything
observed in older core ice. Methane is 130% higher. The rate of
increase of atmospheric CO2 is 200x faster than observed in older core
ice.

And the current increase is coinciding with a corresponding increase
in mean global temperature. And guess what, there is no lag this time.
Why? Good question. But one obvious possibility is that the natural
triggers that led to the end of ice ages in the past didn't happen in
this case. This time, CO2 worked on its own.

Now explain to us how the American Enterprise Institute is
somehow more credible than an international panel of 2500 expert
scientific reviewers and 1300 authors from over 130 countries.

Explain to *me* why an organization that is governed by dictators
and thugs is more credible than one that is supported by the free
enterprise system.

Evasion noted.

Oh, the irony.

I asked you to explain something. You evaded with another strawman.

That's no strawman. That's a rejoinder. That "international panel" is
hand-picked by dictators and thugs.

The IPCC is a *political* organization, Geoff. They do environmental
science like I do computer science - to have something to sell to their
clients. And *you* asked how anyone could trust those mean old
capitalists over pure disinterested scientists.

And I read your article. Reiter makes some pretty wild leaps of faith
and bases his whole thesis on it. I'm not saying that the IPCC is the
Holy Grail of science, but to believe that there is a world-wide
conspiracy of scientists to bring down capitalism is crazy talk.

The IPCC is a UN organization. The same "governing body" that gave us
Oil for Food and Darfur and Rwanda. End of story.

The AEI were paying for qualified reviewers to critique the IPCC
report, which is exactly what you'd expect any legitimate policy
outfit to do.

That may be the way of policy, but not science, which is how they are
posturing the reports to be. But some in academia make a good living
from it. Timothy Ball is one. Unfortunately, he is about as credible
as Behe.

AEI does policy papers. That's their whole mission in life.

It's only your lefty spin that makes that out to be
some sort of hit job. That was covered long ago. Why do keep sticking
with your spin even when it's been rebutted?

You rebutted? I must have missed it.

There were several threads on here, which did include AEI's response to
the charges, buried in all the usual snark from the usual suspects.

All I'm saying is that what interests business (profit) is only one
small part of what interests people. Sure people want to make money
and have as many creature comforts as they can afford, but they also
want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, etc. etc. Unless
these things are important to a business' bottom line, business
won't do it. Why spend millions of dollars in proper disposal when
it can be dumped in a river? Why install scrubbers on stacks when
the air is free?

One reason is that your customers expect it.

How do they know what the *government* is really doing, Geoff? Because
those honest fellers in the MSM never ever slant a story?

And is this the case? Do customers "expect" that the products that
they buy have low environmental impact? I certainly don't. So I try to
be proactive and research products such as laundry detergent. I bring
my own bags to the grovery store instead of using the
non-biodegradeable plastic commonly used.

If only you were so diligent about the politicians you support, or the
media sources that you consume.

I know I'm part of a small minority that takes a "slogan" to heart. So
I really doubt that many people really care until their water is
contaminated with PCBs and they are a cancer hotspot.

Here's an interesting article by John Stossel:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20118
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	08 Apr 2007 07:22:37 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

The IPCC is a *political* organization, Geoff.

That is true. But how does that make the work of the scientists that
CONTRIBUTE to the IPCC less credible than that of the AEI?

They do environmental
science like I do computer science - to have something to sell to
their clients.

Who are their clients?
Please explain how they do science like you do.

The IPCC is a UN organization. The same "governing body" that gave us
Oil for Food and Darfur and Rwanda. End of story.

Ahh...guilt by association. The Bush Administration created a royal
clusterfuck in the Middle East. So are NOAA's findings on climate change
similarly discredited?
What was wrong with the Oil for Food Program again? And as regards Darfur
and Rwanda, if the UN is guilty, so is the US.

The AEI were paying for qualified reviewers to critique the IPCC
report, which is exactly what you'd expect any legitimate policy
outfit to do.

That may be the way of policy, but not science, which is how they are
posturing the reports to be. But some in academia make a good living
from it. Timothy Ball is one. Unfortunately, he is about as credible
as Behe.

AEI does policy papers. That's their whole mission in life.

Yes, but they pass them off as science. That's the point.

It's only your lefty spin that makes that out to be
some sort of hit job. That was covered long ago. Why do keep
sticking with your spin even when it's been rebutted?

You rebutted? I must have missed it.

There were several threads on here, which did include AEI's response
to the charges, buried in all the usual snark from the usual suspects.

Go ahead and point out the post if you want. I'm not going to weed through
all of Usenet for a post you say you made that might have a point.

All I'm saying is that what interests business (profit) is only one
small part of what interests people. Sure people want to make money
and have as many creature comforts as they can afford, but they
also want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, etc. etc.
Unless these things are important to a business' bottom line,
business won't do it. Why spend millions of dollars in proper
disposal when it can be dumped in a river? Why install scrubbers
on stacks when the air is free?

One reason is that your customers expect it.

How do they know what the *government* is really doing, Geoff? Because
those honest fellers in the MSM never ever slant a story?

What the ***** are you talking about? I asked how can you hold corporations
accountable for providing other things that individuals need beside profit
and product, like a clean environment. You said, corporations do it because
their customers expect it, which I rightfully called out as *****.
And then you segue into a rant about the governemnt. Jesus Fred. Work with
me here.

And is this the case? Do customers "expect" that the products that
they buy have low environmental impact? I certainly don't. So I try
to be proactive and research products such as laundry detergent. I
bring my own bags to the grovery store instead of using the
non-biodegradeable plastic commonly used.

If only you were so diligent about the politicians you support, or the
media sources that you consume.

How the ***** do you know the levels of diligence I apply when voting? Did I
vote for Bush? No. Did you? Undoubtedly. I suppose you would say that I did
not do my due diligence because I didn't vote for your particular retard.

I know I'm part of a small minority that takes a "slogan" to heart.
So I really doubt that many people really care until their water is
contaminated with PCBs and they are a cancer hotspot.

Here's an interesting article by John Stossel:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20118

Interesting, yes, but are you implying that I gave a rat's ***** about bird
flu do you think that I am afraid of flying?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	08 Apr 2007 08:20:45 PM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:QvCdnR5OA4HaGoTbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

The IPCC is a *political* organization, Geoff.

That is true. But how does that make the work of the scientists that
CONTRIBUTE to the IPCC less credible than that of the AEI?

How does it make their work *more* credible than the work of the
scientists who contribute to the AEI?

They do environmental
science like I do computer science - to have something to sell to
their clients.

Who are their clients?

Their governments.

Please explain how they do science like you do.

They write reports that say what their sponsors want them to say. I
write programs that do what my clients want them to do.

And I read your article. Reiter makes some pretty wild leaps of
faith and bases his whole thesis on it. I'm not saying that the IPCC
is the Holy Grail of science, but to believe that there is a
world-wide conspiracy of scientists to bring down capitalism is
crazy talk.

The IPCC is a UN organization. The same "governing body" that gave us
Oil for Food and Darfur and Rwanda. End of story.

Ahh...guilt by association. The Bush Administration created a royal
clusterfuck in the Middle East.

The middle east was a royal clusterfuck long before Bush came along.

So are NOAA's findings on climate change similarly discredited?

What was wrong with the Oil for Food Program again?

Saddam was bribing the UN with the money he got from the Oil for Food
program.

And as regards Darfur and Rwanda, if the UN is guilty, so is the US.

If you say so. The UN is *directly* responsible for Rwanda and Darfur.
The US is not.

The AEI were paying for qualified reviewers to critique the IPCC
report, which is exactly what you'd expect any legitimate policy
outfit to do.

That may be the way of policy, but not science, which is how they
are posturing the reports to be. But some in academia make a good
living from it. Timothy Ball is one. Unfortunately, he is about as
credible as Behe.

AEI does policy papers. That's their whole mission in life.

Yes, but they pass them off as science. That's the point.

They were trying include scientific judgements about the effects of
policy. That is the point. You do realize that the debate is about
policy at this point, right?

It's only your lefty spin that makes that out to be
some sort of hit job. That was covered long ago. Why do keep
sticking with your spin even when it's been rebutted?

You rebutted? I must have missed it.

There were several threads on here, which did include AEI's response
to the charges, buried in all the usual snark from the usual
suspects.

Go ahead and point out the post if you want. I'm not going to weed
through all of Usenet for a post you say you made that might have a
point.

I don't care if you wade through it or not. I was there.

All I'm saying is that what interests business (profit) is only
one small part of what interests people. Sure people want to make
money and have as many creature comforts as they can afford, but
they also want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, etc.
etc. Unless these things are important to a business' bottom line,
business won't do it. Why spend millions of dollars in proper
disposal when it can be dumped in a river? Why install scrubbers
on stacks when the air is free?

One reason is that your customers expect it.

How do they know what the *government* is really doing, Geoff?
Because those honest fellers in the MSM never ever slant a story?

What the ***** are you talking about? I asked how can you hold
corporations accountable for providing other things that individuals
need beside profit and product, like a clean environment. You said,
corporations do it because their customers expect it, which I
rightfully called out as *****.

It's true anyway, Geoff, whether you like it or not. Businesses do what
they have to do to sell products. If their customers want something
done, that's what they do. Why do you think Priuses get made? The Green
Fairy?

And then you segue into a rant about the governemnt. Jesus Fred. Work
with me here.

I'm trying, Geoff. Work with *me*.

And is this the case? Do customers "expect" that the products that
they buy have low environmental impact? I certainly don't. So I try
to be proactive and research products such as laundry detergent. I
bring my own bags to the grovery store instead of using the
non-biodegradeable plastic commonly used.

If only you were so diligent about the politicians you support, or
the media sources that you consume.

How the ***** do you know the levels of diligence I apply when voting?

It's pretty obvious from your political positions.

Did I vote for Bush? No. Did you? Undoubtedly.

No, actually, I didn't vote for him.

I suppose you would say
that I did not do my due diligence because I didn't vote for your
particular retard.

He's not "my particular retard". He's the President of the United States
of America. That's your country too, if I'm not mistaken.

I know I'm part of a small minority that takes a "slogan" to heart.
So I really doubt that many people really care until their water is
contaminated with PCBs and they are a cancer hotspot.

Here's an interesting article by John Stossel:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20118

Interesting, yes, but are you implying that I gave a rat's ***** about
bird flu do you think that I am afraid of flying?

Did you hear that whooshing sound?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	10 Apr 2007 12:29:30 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

That is true. But how does that make the work of the scientists that
CONTRIBUTE to the IPCC less credible than that of the AEI?

How does it make their work *more* credible than the work of the
scientists who contribute to the AEI?

That's it mother fucker. I ask you pointed questions and you answer back
with questions. I suppose you think that's clever, but it's rather
transparent and not fair cricket.
NHL playoffs start this week. Have fun jerking off to your Bush centerfolds.
I'm going to enjoy a long playoff run by the Sabres.
.

User: "Dave Fritzinger"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 05:46:19 PM

On Apr 4, 11:23 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1175718611.369707.38720@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 9:18 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"DH" <d...@stargate.com> wrote
innews:4613e649$0$16392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

[snip]

I don't have the slightest clue. You don't either. And all the
computer models in the world won't improve our actual knowledge of
the future one little bit.

In other words, Fred says that he doesn't know, and we should
therefore do nothing. Great plan, Fred. Perhaps that is what you
should have advocated before the invasion of Iraq...

Nice try, Dave, but we're talking about Globull Worming, which even your
"consensus" cannot predict adequately.

And I'm comparing it to the clusterf*ck that is Iraq, which your
heroes certainly did not predict accurately.
Just keep that head in the sand, Fred.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 05:21:17 PM

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1175726779.594787.107430@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 11:23 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1175718611.369707.38720@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 9:18 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"DH" <d...@stargate.com> wrote
innews:4613e649$0$16392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

[snip]

I don't have the slightest clue. You don't either. And all the
computer models in the world won't improve our actual knowledge of
the future one little bit.

In other words, Fred says that he doesn't know, and we should
therefore do nothing. Great plan, Fred. Perhaps that is what you
should have advocated before the invasion of Iraq...

Nice try, Dave, but we're talking about Globull Worming, which even
your "consensus" cannot predict adequately.

And I'm comparing it to the clusterf*ck that is Iraq, which your
heroes certainly did not predict accurately.

Just keep that head in the sand, Fred.

Nice analogy, Dave. Keep it in mind when Pope Al tells you how certain
he is about his *****.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "David Fritzinger"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 11:35:48 PM

In article <Xns9908C4071B4F5freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1175726779.594787.107430@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 11:23 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1175718611.369707.38720@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 9:18 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"DH" <d...@stargate.com> wrote
innews:4613e649$0$16392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

[snip]

I don't have the slightest clue. You don't either. And all the
computer models in the world won't improve our actual knowledge of
the future one little bit.

In other words, Fred says that he doesn't know, and we should
therefore do nothing. Great plan, Fred. Perhaps that is what you
should have advocated before the invasion of Iraq...

Nice try, Dave, but we're talking about Globull Worming, which even
your "consensus" cannot predict adequately.

And I'm comparing it to the clusterf*ck that is Iraq, which your
heroes certainly did not predict accurately.

Just keep that head in the sand, Fred.

Nice analogy, Dave. Keep it in mind when Pope Al tells you how certain
he is about his *****.

Fred, even for you, that is nonsensical.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 06:33:59 AM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in news:3_6dnbzdN-
5tiI7bnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@giganews.com:

dh wrote:

Yeah. It's also 20% less efficient than it could be just because of
consumer tastes and cost-management decisions.

Don't believe it. Refrigerators and AC have never been more efficient.

They could be even more efficient if they used more efficient coolants.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	03 Apr 2007 10:37:28 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Iceland plans to be fossil fuel free by the end of the decade.

Good for them. They're a tiny country with a miniscule economy in the
first place.

Think globally, act locally.

France
is a leader in breeder nuclear reactor technologies which promises to
alleviate waste. Unfortunately, they don't make ***** for plutonium
239 so the US didn't want them.

France isn't meeting their Kyoto targets either.

Cite, please! According to
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/cop-12/kyoto-targets-dsf-2006.pdf
"France has reduced its GHGs by about 2%, already surpassing its Kyoto
target of maintaining emissions at the 1990 level." (May 2006)

When did Al Gore say that?

In his presentation to Congress. He wants to freeze CO2 production,
which equates to freezing economic growth.

Wrong. He is explicit (and I agree) that this isn't the case.\

He is full of *****, and so are you. You can't just handwave new
technologies into existence.

Ahhh....no *****, Sherlock. Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? Ever hear of
the Apollo Program? Both of these are excellent examples of how the US
government cooperated with business to counter a strategic threat with
emerging technologies that reaped untold benefits.
Don't you have any faith in the ingenuity of Americans? The longer we wait,
the harder it will be to compete.

In fact,
there are plenty of opportunities to be leaders in development of new
technologies as mentioned earlier with respect to Norway.

That's great. When Gore's proposal reduces the US's economy to the
size of Norway's we can do the same.

Don't you see that America's best hope for the future is to develop emerging
technologies in these and other fields in order to maintain our standard of
living? Do you think we're ever going to get back the shoe manufacturing
from China?

As in
nature, changing business environments require evolution. Those
countries and businesses that hold the most imagination and
innovation will succeed.

You don't bet the whole economy of a country like the US on imaginary
solutions to imaginary problems.

Nice straw man. You do know what the word for "crisis" in Japanese
translates as right? "Crisis" = "danger" + "opportunity". I'm counting on
imaginitive solutions to a very real crisis to open new windows of
opportunity for business to create jobs for Americans here in the
US...unlike exporting them to Dubai like Halliburton.
I don't think it's realistic that wee can stop companies like that from
moving out. Companies are basically nationless. So we have to do something
to replace these jobs and compete with the rest of the world.

Don't believe all the huff and puff from the Bush Administration.
Conservatives were blowing the same smoke with respect to CFC's and
no one went out of business then.

Your air conditioner and your refrigerator is 20% less efficient than
it could be because of it.

Jesus, Fred, if you're going to argue with me about engineering, you should
know that I come from a family of them. My brother is a regularly published
contributor for ASHRAE so this took all of about 3 minutes to refute.
Refrigerator efficiency averages actually declined from 25% to 5% from 1950
to 1970 (mainly due to size and add-ons). Efficiencies have been climbing
unabated since then, despite the switch to alternative refrigerants, and are
now about 15%.
see:
http://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/Reading%20List%20files/Dahmus-Efficiencypdf.pdf
From the article:
"Unlike the case of automobiles, refrigerators did succeed in crossing the
line of constant
impact. In the 1950s and 60s, refrigerator efficiency was worsening.
However, with
regulations beginning to take effect in the 1970s, the efficiency of the
fleet of
refrigerators in use slowly began to improve. In the 1970s and 80s,
significant efficiency
improvements were realized, moving refrigerators past the constant impact
line for the
first time. This trend continued into the 1990s, in large part due to
constantly updated
efficiency requirements. Crossing over the constant impact line, as
refrigerators did in
the 1980s, meant that the overall impact of refrigerators actually declined.
Of the cases
shown in this paper, refrigerators, specifically refrigerators in the 1980s
and 1990s, were
the only example in which equation (2) was satisfied. In all other cases,
increases in
production and consumption outpaced improvements in efficiency.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 06:43:28 AM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:RdmdnRl-UrrpgI7bnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

Iceland plans to be fossil fuel free by the end of the decade.

Good for them. They're a tiny country with a miniscule economy in the
first place.

Think globally, act locally.

Think, don't spout slogans.

France
is a leader in breeder nuclear reactor technologies which promises
to alleviate waste. Unfortunately, they don't make ***** for
plutonium 239 so the US didn't want them.

France isn't meeting their Kyoto targets either.

When did Al Gore say that?

In his presentation to Congress. He wants to freeze CO2 production,
which equates to freezing economic growth.

Wrong. He is explicit (and I agree) that this isn't the case.\

He is full of *****, and so are you. You can't just handwave new
technologies into existence.

Ahhh....no *****, Sherlock. Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? Ever
hear of the Apollo Program? Both of these are excellent examples of
how the US government cooperated with business to counter a strategic
threat with emerging technologies that reaped untold benefits.

What are you going to do, Geoff, declare war on greenhouse gas?

Don't you have any faith in the ingenuity of Americans? The longer we
wait, the harder it will be to compete.

Go preach your sermons to the religious groups.

In fact,
there are plenty of opportunities to be leaders in development of
new technologies as mentioned earlier with respect to Norway.

That's great. When Gore's proposal reduces the US's economy to the
size of Norway's we can do the same.

Don't you see that America's best hope for the future is to develop
emerging technologies in these and other fields in order to maintain
our standard of living? Do you think we're ever going to get back the
shoe manufacturing from China?

As in
nature, changing business environments require evolution. Those
countries and businesses that hold the most imagination and
innovation will succeed.

You don't bet the whole economy of a country like the US on imaginary
solutions to imaginary problems.

Nice straw man. You do know what the word for "crisis" in Japanese
translates as right? "Crisis" = "danger" + "opportunity". I'm counting
on imaginitive

There's that word again.

solutions to a very real crisis

A "crisis" that you will *create* for us.

to open new windows of
opportunity for business to create jobs for Americans here in the
US...unlike exporting them to Dubai like Halliburton.

I don't think it's realistic that wee can stop companies like that
from moving out.

Of course not, since you're going to keep on imposing ridiculous
regulatory environments on them.

Companies are basically nationless. So we have to do
something to replace these jobs and compete with the rest of the
world.

How about removing the impediments to competition?

Don't believe all the huff and puff from the Bush Administration.
Conservatives were blowing the same smoke with respect to CFC's and
no one went out of business then.

Your air conditioner and your refrigerator is 20% less efficient than
it could be because of it.

You didn't refute anything, Geoff. I didn't say that it was less
efficient than it *was*. I said it was less efficient than it *could
be*.
Refrigerator efficiency averages actually declined

from 25% to 5% from 1950 to 1970 (mainly due to size and add-ons).
Efficiencies have been climbing unabated since then, despite the
switch to alternative refrigerants, and are now about 15%.
see:
http://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/Reading%20List%20files/Dahmus-

Efficiencypd

f.pdf

That's great, Geoff. Now, since you're such a great engineer, account
for the effect of the less efficient coolants that replaced the CFC's.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 03:03:13 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Iceland plans to be fossil fuel free by the end of the decade.

Good for them. They're a tiny country with a miniscule economy in
the first place.

Think globally, act locally.

Think, don't spout slogans.

OK...let me spell out the slogan for you since you can't seem to wade
through the concept. The idea is to base local actions on what their effects
would be if everyone followed them locally. Iceland is taking actions to
reduce its dependence on scarce resources and to limit the impact of its
population's GHG footprint. There is nothing that they can do to reduce what
you or I do along the same lines.

France isn't meeting their Kyoto targets either.

Cite, please! According to
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/cop-12/kyoto-targets-dsf-2006.pdf
"France has reduced its GHGs by about 2%, already surpassing its
Kyoto target of maintaining emissions at the 1990 level." (May 2006)

Evasion noted.

Ahhh....no *****, Sherlock. Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? Ever
hear of the Apollo Program? Both of these are excellent examples of
how the US government cooperated with business to counter a strategic
threat with emerging technologies that reaped untold benefits.

What are you going to do, Geoff, declare war on greenhouse gas?

Non sequitur. How is the Apollo program a military project. On an
international scale, look how govenments have cooperated to eradicate
smallpox. In this case, international cooperation is threatened by military
stockpiles.

Don't you have any faith in the ingenuity of Americans? The longer we
wait, the harder it will be to compete.

Go preach your sermons to the religious groups.

Why would I do that. Their blind faith can only be more severe than yours.
That might be considered a compliment. Take it as you may.

Nice straw man. You do know what the word for "crisis" in Japanese
translates as right? "Crisis" = "danger" + "opportunity". I'm
counting on imaginitive

There's that word again.

What word? "Imaginative"...quite different from "imaginary".

solutions to a very real crisis

A "crisis" that you will *create* for us.

No. Global climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of GHG's is the
consensus of scientific opinion. The only ones who disagree are entrenched
political castes made up of radical conservatives and big business.
The politicization of this issue is highly correlative to the objection to
scientific consensus on evolutionary theory by religious conservatives. It's
is a bit ironic that an atheist like you is a credulist on their scale.

I don't think it's realistic that wee can stop companies like that
from moving out.

Of course not, since you're going to keep on imposing ridiculous
regulatory environments on them.

Would an absence of all regulations on business be a utopian society in your
opinion?

Companies are basically nationless. So we have to do
something to replace these jobs and compete with the rest of the
world.

How about removing the impediments to competition?

If you think that a lack of environmental restrictions on industry is a good
thing, I invite you to see how ravaged the PRC has become in the past decade
of expansion. Sure it's a largely state-controlled industrial sector, but
how would it differ substantially from a capitalist state without
regulations? What motives do US businesses have for protecting the
environment? How do you suppose such concerns stack up against profit?
There has to be a balance of concern for business and individuals. It has
been slanted toward business for the past several decades and the
discontinuity is growing.

You didn't refute anything, Geoff. I didn't say that it was less
efficient than it *was*. I said it was less efficient than it *could
be*.

And you have not supported your argument one bit. I provided an
industry-wide analysis of average efficiency that showed that efficiencies
were increasing unabated from 1970 to 2000, right through the elimination of
"old-style" CFC's. All you have done is say, yeah, well it could be better.
What makes you say that?
Regardless, it wouldn't matter one iota if refrigerators were twice as
efficient if we were all dying of skin cancer. I know that's an
exaggeration, but a decision was made internationally, based on hard data,
that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer and that they should be removed.
Since then, ozone depletion has abated. Also, the "old-style" CFC's are
known GHGs and GHG precursors.
The Montreal Protocol was a victory for international cooperation and none
of the doom-and-gloom predicted by industry and conservatives has be borne
out.

Refrigerator efficiency averages actually declined

That's great, Geoff. Now, since you're such a great engineer, account
for the effect of the less efficient coolants that replaced the CFC's.

You made the claim that efficiency would be higher with CFC's. Why don't you
try and support your own argument?
OK...here's one example of a non-CFC refrigerant: ammonia. It has a COP
(cooling/heating capacity, kW, divided by rated power consumption) that is
7% higher than R22. It has no ozone impact. It's global warming impact is
zero compared to R22 which is 1700 (about middle of the road for CFC's.
Ammonia's toxicity and combustibility limit it's application to large-scale
systems where safeguards can be implemented to scale.
See: http://www.daikin.com/environment/info/influence_03.html
But there are also developments in HFC's (like R-502 and R-407) that are not
ozone depleting and which have reduced GHG impact (although not as good as
ammonia). They are additionally preferable to ammonia since they are not
toxic or combustible. Improvements to these and other refrigerants continue.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 04:43:30 PM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:FPKdnUvBJaXhmYnbnZ2dnUVZ_uGjnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

Iceland plans to be fossil fuel free by the end of the decade.

Good for them. They're a tiny country with a miniscule economy in
the first place.

Think globally, act locally.

Think, don't spout slogans.

OK...let me spell out the slogan for you since you can't seem to wade
through the concept. The idea is to base local actions on what their
effects would be if everyone followed them locally. Iceland is taking
actions to reduce its dependence on scarce resources and to limit the
impact of its population's GHG footprint. There is nothing that they
can do to reduce what you or I do along the same lines.

Oh, I could wade through the concept all right.

France isn't meeting their Kyoto targets either.

Cite, please! According to
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/cop-12/kyoto-targets-dsf-

2006.pd

f "France has reduced its GHGs by about 2%, already surpassing its
Kyoto target of maintaining emissions at the 1990 level." (May 2006)

Evasion noted.

Ahhh....no *****, Sherlock. Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? Ever
hear of the Apollo Program? Both of these are excellent examples of
how the US government cooperated with business to counter a
strategic threat with emerging technologies that reaped untold
benefits.

What are you going to do, Geoff, declare war on greenhouse gas?

Apollo was built on military missile technology.

Don't you have any faith in the ingenuity of Americans? The longer
we wait, the harder it will be to compete.

Go preach your sermons to the religious groups.

Why would I do that. Their blind faith can only be more severe than
yours. That might be considered a compliment. Take it as you may.

Nice straw man. You do know what the word for "crisis" in Japanese
translates as right? "Crisis" = "danger" + "opportunity". I'm
counting on imaginitive

There's that word again.

What word? "Imaginative"...quite different from "imaginary".

Not very different in this case.

solutions to a very real crisis

A "crisis" that you will *create* for us.

No, Geoff, that is not true. That is political hogwash from the
entrenched political caste made up of radical leftwing environmentalists
and their socialist allies.

The politicization of this issue is highly correlative to the
objection to scientific consensus on evolutionary theory by religious
conservatives.

The difference is like night and day.

It's is a bit ironic that an atheist like you is a
credulist on their scale.

It's ironic that someone who is so devoted to "free speech" is so
willing to go along with those who are determined to silence all
opposition to their doctrine.

I don't think it's realistic that wee can stop companies like that
from moving out.

Of course not, since you're going to keep on imposing ridiculous
regulatory environments on them.

Would an absence of all regulations on business be a utopian society
in your opinion?

Not necessarily. Some regulations are probably useful, but there is such
a thing as dimishing returns.

Companies are basically nationless. So we have to do
something to replace these jobs and compete with the rest of the
world.

How about removing the impediments to competition?

How does China differ from a capitalist state? Hmm, let me count the
ways.
1. It's a state monopoly.
2. It's centrally planned.
3. It's a holdover from Communism.

What motives do US businesses
have for protecting the environment? How do you suppose such concerns
stack up against profit?

You greenies keep claiming that environmentalism is profitable, so what
are you worried about? Can't your claims stand the test of the market?

There has to be a balance of concern for business and individuals. It
has been slanted toward business for the past several decades and the
discontinuity is growing.

That balance has been slanted *against* business for so long that the
slope is practically vertical, and you're complaining about the
slightest tilt in the other direction.

You didn't refute anything, Geoff. I didn't say that it was less
efficient than it *was*. I said it was less efficient than it *could
be*.

The fact is that the replacement coolants for old-style "CFC-using"
refrigerators were less efficient. I don't have to cite that, Geoff.
You're supposedly an engineer, you should know that already.

Regardless, it wouldn't matter one iota if refrigerators were twice as
efficient if we were all dying of skin cancer. I know that's an
exaggeration, but a decision was made internationally, based on hard
data, that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer and that they should
be removed. Since then, ozone depletion has abated. Also, the
"old-style" CFC's are known GHGs and GHG precursors.

And once again, CFC is not CO2.

The Montreal Protocol was a victory for international cooperation and
none of the doom-and-gloom predicted by industry and conservatives has
be borne out.

I'm not disagreeing, Geoff, but you had to drag us off on this tangent.

Refrigerator efficiency averages actually declined

That's great, Geoff. Now, since you're such a great engineer, account
for the effect of the less efficient coolants that replaced the
CFC's.

Yes, Geoff, they don't use ammonia in household appliances.

But there are also developments in HFC's (like R-502 and R-407) that
are not ozone depleting and which have reduced GHG impact (although
not as good as ammonia). They are additionally preferable to ammonia
since they are not toxic or combustible. Improvements to these and
other refrigerants continue.

Yes, Geoff, those have been developed recently. The fact remains that
refrigerators using the replacements for CFC's were not as efficient.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	04 Apr 2007 09:39:00 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Think globally, act locally.

Think, don't spout slogans.

OK...let me spell out the slogan for you since you can't seem to wade
through the concept. The idea is to base local actions on what their
effects would be if everyone followed them locally. Iceland is taking
actions to reduce its dependence on scarce resources and to limit the
impact of its population's GHG footprint. There is nothing that they
can do to reduce what you or I do along the same lines.

Oh, I could wade through the concept all right.

Nice water wings, Fredo!

France isn't meeting their Kyoto targets either.

Cite, please! According to
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/cop-12/kyoto-targets-dsf-
2006.pd f "France has reduced its GHGs by about 2%, already
surpassing its Kyoto target of maintaining emissions at the 1990
level." (May 2006)

Evasion noted.

Ignorance noted. Keep running, Fredo.

Apollo was built on military missile technology.

The missile technology was just one part of the program. The Apollo program
spawned myriad technologies that were then exploited by private enterprise.
Like Tang!

Nice straw man. You do know what the word for "crisis" in Japanese
translates as right? "Crisis" = "danger" + "opportunity". I'm
counting on imaginitive

There's that word again.

What word? "Imaginative"...quite different from "imaginary".

Not very different in this case.

Pretty lame, Fredo. Even by your standards.

No, Geoff, that is not true. That is political hogwash from the
entrenched political caste made up of radical leftwing
environmentalists and their socialist allies.

Nice. I see you took my sentence and just substituted opposite terms. You're
like John Cleese in the Argument Clinic sketch except not the least bit
amusing.

The politicization of this issue is highly correlative to the
objection to scientific consensus on evolutionary theory by religious
conservatives.

The difference is like night and day.

Here's one similarity. Both subvert the scientific process of peer review
and take their case to the public through "scientific" think tanks that do
no research The American Enterprise Institute is big oil's answer to the
Discovery Institute.
In both cases, the basis of their efforts is not research into discoveriong
new scientific knowledge, but merely to cast doubt on peer reviewed science
in the public eye. It apparently has worked on you.
see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
From the article: "Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI),
an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration,
offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a
report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Now, of course, you're not going to just contradict me. You're going to
start a cogent argument that addresses each point I made without resorting
to common logical fallacies as is your normal wont.

It's is a bit ironic that an atheist like you is a
credulist on their scale.

It's ironic that someone who is so devoted to "free speech" is so
willing to go along with those who are determined to silence all
opposition to their doctrine.

Dude...science is not democracy. Science is about consensus. If the climate
change deniers want to be taken seriously, they have to do real research
that can be corroborated and replicated by others. Instead, they just want
to force policy by manipulating public opinion. If you don't think that is
bass-ackwards, then I would say your education in the sciences is wanting.

I don't think it's realistic that we can stop companies like that
from moving out.

Of course not, since you're going to keep on imposing ridiculous
regulatory environments on them.

Would an absence of all regulations on business be a utopian society
in your opinion?

Not necessarily. Some regulations are probably useful, but there is
such a thing as dimishing returns.

Of course. But I think where we disagree is where that balance lies.

Companies are basically nationless. So we have to do
something to replace these jobs and compete with the rest of the
world.

How about removing the impediments to competition?

How does China differ from a capitalist state? Hmm, let me count the
ways.
1. It's a state monopoly.
2. It's centrally planned.
3. It's a holdover from Communism.

Indisputably. But that wasn't my point. Industrial pollution by China's
heavy industry is not regulated at all. I've seen how strip mining can
ravage the environment here in the United States. Fortunately, it has been
limited in the past 15 years or so (not eliminated). You can see the same
***** in Tibet.
The same with toxic waste dumping. In the US we established the Superfund.
It was funded by fines to responsible polluters and a general tax on
industry. By any measure, it was successful in cleaning up thousands of
sites left by industry. China is like pre-Superfund America.
Unfortunately, in 1995 Gingrich led a successful effort to remove the
"polluter-pays" system from the Superfund and all funding then came from
Treasury i.e. us. Under Christine Whitman, the EPA budget repeatedly reduced
funding for the trust which has fallen from $3.6 billion to under $200
million. Whitman's solution. Defund over 100 sites still needing attention,
nearly 20 in her own state.

What motives do US businesses
have for protecting the environment? How do you suppose such concerns
stack up against profit?

You greenies keep claiming that environmentalism is profitable, so
what are you worried about? Can't your claims stand the test of the
market?

The point is not about profit. The point is whether business can be trusted
to be a responsible partner in society. In the short-term, a company can
save hundreds of thousands of dollars by dumping toxic waste. Why not? What
motive do they have not to?
In the long-run, it can cost billions of dollars to remedy. In the meantime,
further societal costs build up when people get cancer and babies get birth
defects and houses are bull-dozed. I grew up near Love Canal. You can't
imagine what it was like for those people. They lost evereything.
And who pays for it? The companies. Maybe a fraction if they can afford it.
By and large, good old Uncle Sam pays for it.

There has to be a balance of concern for business and individuals. It
has been slanted toward business for the past several decades and the
discontinuity is growing.

That balance has been slanted *against* business for so long that the
slope is practically vertical, and you're complaining about the
slightest tilt in the other direction.

OK...please be specific. Your hand waving is pretty annoying.

You didn't refute anything, Geoff. I didn't say that it was less
efficient than it *was*. I said it was less efficient than it *could
be*.

The fact is that the replacement coolants for old-style "CFC-using"
refrigerators were less efficient. I don't have to cite that, Geoff.
You're supposedly an engineer, you should know that already.

Completely wrong. I have shown that to be false.

Regardless, it wouldn't matter one iota if refrigerators were twice
as efficient if we were all dying of skin cancer. I know that's an
exaggeration, but a decision was made internationally, based on hard
data, that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer and that they should
be removed. Since then, ozone depletion has abated. Also, the
"old-style" CFC's are known GHGs and GHG precursors.

And once again, CFC is not CO2.

Who said they were? I don't understand your point. Where in my previous
paragragh do I mention CO2. Do you dispute that CFC's contribute to GHG's?
If you do, I suggest you read up on your chemistry. I can't hold your hane
all the time. You're out of you breadth here, sport.

The Montreal Protocol was a victory for international cooperation and
none of the doom-and-gloom predicted by industry and conservatives
has be borne out.

I'm not disagreeing, Geoff, but you had to drag us off on this
tangent.

Dude...it's all intertwined...the point is that we have seen industry drag
it's heels and use the same obfuscating tactics in the past. *****, there are
still people that think that CFC's were not responsible for ozone depletion
and that was settled 20 years ago.
Climate change denial is the same thing.

Refrigerator efficiency averages actually declined

That's great, Geoff. Now, since you're such a great engineer,
account for the effect of the less efficient coolants that replaced
the CFC's.

Yes, Geoff, they don't use ammonia in household appliances.

Gee, thanks, Fredo. Didn't I just say that?

Yes, Geoff, those have been developed recently. The fact remains that
refrigerators using the replacements for CFC's were not as efficient.

Do you know when those alternatives were developed? Do you know when CFC's
were completely banned? Obviously you don't. Otherwise, you would know that
CFC's were phased out over several years while alternatives were developed
with comparable COPs. The Montreal Protocol wasn't applied will-nilly as you
might think.
I provided a historical graph of refrigerant efficiency over the past 60
years. If there was a discontinuity caused by the changeover, one would
expect the data to vet that out. But you don't. There is a steady rise from
1970 to 2000 with no disruption whatsoever.
So go ahead and just disagree. I have invested a lot of time and thought
into this thread while you just wave you hands and say, "No, it isn't." It's
pretty boring Fredo. You bring nothing to the table but strawmen, non
sequiturs, appeals to fear, ad hominum, and ad populi.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Violence In Iraq Increased by 13%. the Surge Is Secceeding!	05 Apr 2007 08:00:38 AM

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:MIWdnRYXeMmj_InbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

<...>

It's ironic that someone who is so devoted to "free speech" is so
willing to go along with those who are determined to silence all
opposition to their doctrine.

Dude...science is not democracy. Science is about consensus.

No, Geoff, science is not about consensus.
Science is about *evidence*.
It's not about dogma and it's not about accusing people who disagree
with the dogma of "being supported by the oil industry". It's about
embracing their criticism and dealing with it.
It's not about calling people "deniers" and stigmatizing them with
comparisons to the holocaust or to Creationists just because they
disagree with your political viewpoint or your demand for drastic policy
prescriptions.
If you don't understand that, there's no point in trying to deal with
you.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.