| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
06 Jun 2007 10:29:37 AM |
| Object: |
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming |
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he’d stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
LOS ANGELES - The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he
regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent
radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The
Associated Press.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting
Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that
“unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political
than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out
of it.”
“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly
that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he
said.
Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio
interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem.
“I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin
said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a
problem we must wrestle with.”
The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his
remarks ignorant.
An international panel this year predicted that uncontrolled
greenhouse gas emissions could drive up global temperatures and
trigger heat waves, devastating droughts and super storms.
Observations by NASA satellites show evidence of rapidly melting
glaciers and shrinking of critical marine plant life due to warmer
seas.
Griffin reiterated that NASA’s job was to provide scientific data on
global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do
with it.
Griffin told JPL workers he tried to separate his opinions during the
NPR interview, but that it got “lost in the shuffle.”
“Doing media interviews is an art. Their goal is usually to generate
controversy because it sells interviews and papers, and my goal is
usually to avoid controversy,” he said.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
| User: "Amanda Williams" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming |
06 Jun 2007 10:54:22 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> allegedly said in
news:dhkd63le45gvsijhkt3fige9o4fvmrjfr6@4ax.com:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he’d stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
LOS ANGELES - The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he
regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent
radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The
Associated Press.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting
Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that
“unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political
than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out
of it.”
“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly
that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he
said.
Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio
interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem.
“I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin
said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a
problem we must wrestle with.”
The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his
remarks ignorant.
An international panel this year predicted that uncontrolled
greenhouse gas emissions could drive up global temperatures and
trigger heat waves, devastating droughts and super storms.
Observations by NASA satellites show evidence of rapidly melting
glaciers and shrinking of critical marine plant life due to warmer
seas.
Griffin reiterated that NASA’s job was to provide scientific data on
global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do
with it.
Griffin told JPL workers he tried to separate his opinions during the
NPR interview, but that it got “lost in the shuffle.”
“Doing media interviews is an art. Their goal is usually to generate
controversy because it sells interviews and papers, and my goal is
usually to avoid controversy,” he said.
I bet this won't turn up on any of the reichtard blogs like the original
did...
Gonzo Funeral Watch: 86 days 11 hours 55 minutes and counting.
--
AW
<small but dangerous>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amanda Williams" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming |
06 Jun 2007 10:54:36 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> allegedly said in
news:dhkd63le45gvsijhkt3fige9o4fvmrjfr6@4ax.com:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he’d stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
LOS ANGELES - The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he
regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent
radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The
Associated Press.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting
Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that
“unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political
than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out
of it.”
“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly
that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he
said.
Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio
interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem.
“I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin
said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a
problem we must wrestle with.”
The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his
remarks ignorant.
An international panel this year predicted that uncontrolled
greenhouse gas emissions could drive up global temperatures and
trigger heat waves, devastating droughts and super storms.
Observations by NASA satellites show evidence of rapidly melting
glaciers and shrinking of critical marine plant life due to warmer
seas.
Griffin reiterated that NASA’s job was to provide scientific data on
global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do
with it.
Griffin told JPL workers he tried to separate his opinions during the
NPR interview, but that it got “lost in the shuffle.”
“Doing media interviews is an art. Their goal is usually to generate
controversy because it sells interviews and papers, and my goal is
usually to avoid controversy,” he said.
I bet this won't turn up on any of the reichtard blogs like the original
did...
Gonzo Funeral Watch: 86 days 11 hours 55 minutes and counting.
--
AW
<small but dangerous>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming |
07 Jun 2007 01:27:07 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
He got in the way of big corporate profits. Looks like his career is now
on the short track.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming |
06 Jun 2007 10:56:32 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 10:29 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
LOS ANGELES - The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he
regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent
radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The
Associated Press.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting
Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that
"unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political
than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out
of it."
"All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly
that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," he
said.
Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio
interviewer he wasn't sure global warming was a problem.
"I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists," Griffin
said on NPR. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a
problem we must wrestle with."
The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his
remarks ignorant.
An international panel this year predicted that uncontrolled
greenhouse gas emissions could drive up global temperatures and
trigger heat waves, devastating droughts and super storms.
Observations by NASA satellites show evidence of rapidly melting
glaciers and shrinking of critical marine plant life due to warmer
seas.
Griffin reiterated that NASA's job was to provide scientific data on
global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do
with it.
Griffin told JPL workers he tried to separate his opinions during the
NPR interview, but that it got "lost in the shuffle."
"Doing media interviews is an art. Their goal is usually to generate
controversy because it sells interviews and papers, and my goal is
usually to avoid controversy," he said.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political than
technical. That's why so little ever gets done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming |
06 Jun 2007 02:05:17 PM |
|
|
"jerky klutz" whined along with:
"lacking comprehension" <darance@charter.net> quoted from:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political
than technical[..]
How would you know, console monkey?
--It's not like you're degreed in the sciences..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming |
07 Jun 2007 10:59:07 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 2:05 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jerky klutz" whined along with:
"lacking comprehension" <dara...@charter.net> quoted from:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political
than technical[..]
How would you know, console monkey?
--It's not like you're degreed in the sciences..
A brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jerky klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 07:53:58 AM |
|
|
"jerky klutz" groveled for more attention from:
Kurt Lochner was chiding the intentional ignorance of:
"jerky klutz" whined along with:
"lacking comprehension" <darance@charter.net> quoted from:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political
than technical[..]
How would you know, console monkey?
--It's not like you're degreed in the sciences..
A brief introduction[..]
Evasion noted and laughed at..
--Again..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: "jerky klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 09:38:07 AM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 7:53 am, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jerky klutz" groveled for more attention from:
Kurt Lochner was chiding the intentional ignorance of:
"jerky klutz" whined along with:
"lacking comprehension" <dara...@charter.net> quoted from:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political
than technical[..]
How would you know, console monkey?
--It's not like you're degreed in the sciences..
A brief introduction[..]
Evasion noted and laughed at..
--Again..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jerky klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 12:20:20 PM |
|
|
"jerky klutz" exhibited OCD when:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the pathology exhibited by:
"jerky klutz" groveled for more attention from:
Kurt Lochner was chiding the intentional ignorance of:
"jerky klutz" whined along with:
"lacking comprehension" <darance@charter.net> quoted from:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political
than technical[..]
How would you know, console monkey?
--It's not like you're degreed in the sciences..
A brief introduction[..]
Evasion noted and laughed at..
--Again..
brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
*>LOL!<* Thanks for again proving my point..
When are you going to respond to the facts I posted for you?
Nope, but I can easily provide those, with abstracts, excerpts and
conclusions. Problem is, how much time do I think it's worth to
put up with someone badgering me for "more cites" when the task
of using a search engine would likely teach you how to fish,
rather than me wasting hours catching the fish for you..
I have attempted to find the type of papers I just described above.
It isn't easy, I can assure you of that.. There are quite a few more
web-sites trying to dispute the causes than reputable research reports
supporting such a hypothesis, if you hadn't already noticed.
Can't find a single one, even when I start from what look like
promising sources. Nobody on usenet (that I've seen anyway) has
yet coughed up a single citation to such a paper.
There aren't a lot of degreed scientists on the Usenet political
forums, though I suppose that should 'want' for an explanation
(while I'm digging out some valid studies for you to peruse)..
The profession of scientific research itself is 'political' in
some ways more 'ripe' with dissent than the political environment
we see presented (a generous term itself) on television and print.
The difference being that "modern journalism" isn't as rigorously
peer-reviewed as the academic research papers presented today.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of details involved
in the formal study of the environment, which makes it all too
easy for 'outsiders' (with apologies to Dr. Sue Hinton) to dismiss
out of hand an alarming number of factors that come into play
so far as 'anthropocentric' causes of 'global warming' goes.
I'm having difficulty trying to summarize this for you, if you
hadn't already fingered that out as yet, as I 'lean' towards
actual numbers and formulae to support some of my assertions..
Here's an example of how the numbers were estimated, along with
the basic premises used to extrapolate them, from detailed
questionnaires and national trade databases..
Abstract..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm
Data methodologies and premises.. Oh, and numbers..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/factors.htm
Some estimates of how this effects the troposphere..
Yeah, the IPCC page..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Climate change projections from the UK meteorological office..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
And, in the last 100 years, a graph of the temperature index..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
Hurricanes and estimates of that situation..
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/tar_fig_2_6.gif
An interesting quote..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html
"The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet
and all of us face uncertain consequences if the temperature rise
crosses the 2 degree threshold. We need to make sense of this
challenge - not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific
validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office
has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this"
--Robert Napier, Met Office Chairman
pointing to peer-reviewed scientific papers that can answer
There are many dozens of papers purporting to show trends,
you should know how to look that up for yourself by now.
Trends are not sufficient. I'm looking for studies showing
conclusive evidence causally linking the burning of petroleum
to global warming.
A view from outside of the 'box'..
http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/PERE/conference/papers/parikh.pdf
Some of the considerations used to reach empirical evidence..
http://www.rff.org/~kopp/working_papers/meta_modeling_report.pdf
A paper stating population and industrial growth, with numbers..
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/env70/
There must be such a paper out there, because global warming
proponents are constantly harping about the key role played
by the burning of petroleum.
And the emissions of CO2, methane, as well as particulate matter..
Yes, there are several dozens of them, as the premise isn't all
that new, and does build upon decades of studies, data and such..
And, recall that I've simply refuted a supposed 'ruse' by
pointing out that there is a dearth of reliable information
and peer-reviewed science publications that indicate otherwise..
Let's see the papers, then we can discuss what is and is not a ruse.
Dig into what I've provided and reach for your own conclusions..
Surely, such a study exists.
Have you tried looking for such?
I've spend many hours looking for such papers. Perhaps I
don't know the proper terminology?
Hrrmmm, I couldn't say for certain, though sometimes the order
that you put your keyword search into, like math operands,
have a certain order of precedences that can help you..
F'rinstance, I used Altavista.com, instead of Google. Then
entered "CO2" into the search field for a general class. Then
I used the term "anthropocentric" to narrow it down somewhat,
and used "petroleum" as a specific detail I wanted to find..
It might seem confusing at first, but I've found that if I
start with a general term, and then worry it down to the
specifics I want to know, I get a lower "noise floor"..
And for you to claim that the cessation of burning fossil fuels
could stop global warming, [..]
You're misquoting me. I said, "Quite possibly.."
What's the difference?
The difference is that I'm not stating that one single factor
is responsible in such a complex system, nor can any single
factor cause such a complex system to reverse all the others.
Our planet's climate and weather is a system seeking equilibrium
and is 'powered' by several energy inputs, so to speak. To single
out just the burning of fossil fuels as a solution is folly, in
my humble estimations. However, that is unlikely to happen in
any event and doesn't even enter into the range of possible
solutions that can practically be implemented, as far as I
can speak generally to this subject, on a political newsgroup..
--See subject header for details, console monkey..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: "jerky klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 12:31:35 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 12:20 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jerky klutz" exhibited OCD when:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the pathology exhibited by:
"jerky klutz" groveled for more attention from:
Kurt Lochner was chiding the intentional ignorance of:
"jerky klutz" whined along with:
"lacking comprehension" <dara...@charter.net> quoted from:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political
than technical[..]
How would you know, console monkey?
--It's not like you're degreed in the sciences..
A brief introduction[..]
Evasion noted and laughed at..
--Again..
brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
*>LOL!<* Thanks for again proving my point..
When are you going to respond to the facts I posted for you?
Nope, but I can easily provide those, with abstracts, excerpts and
conclusions. Problem is, how much time do I think it's worth to
put up with someone badgering me for "more cites" when the task
of using a search engine would likely teach you how to fish,
rather than me wasting hours catching the fish for you..
I have attempted to find the type of papers I just described above.
It isn't easy, I can assure you of that.. There are quite a few more
web-sites trying to dispute the causes than reputable research reports
supporting such a hypothesis, if you hadn't already noticed.
Can't find a single one, even when I start from what look like
promising sources. Nobody on usenet (that I've seen anyway) has
yet coughed up a single citation to such a paper.
There aren't a lot of degreed scientists on the Usenet political
forums, though I suppose that should 'want' for an explanation
(while I'm digging out some valid studies for you to peruse)..
The profession of scientific research itself is 'political' in
some ways more 'ripe' with dissent than the political environment
we see presented (a generous term itself) on television and print.
The difference being that "modern journalism" isn't as rigorously
peer-reviewed as the academic research papers presented today.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of details involved
in the formal study of the environment, which makes it all too
easy for 'outsiders' (with apologies to Dr. Sue Hinton) to dismiss
out of hand an alarming number of factors that come into play
so far as 'anthropocentric' causes of 'global warming' goes.
I'm having difficulty trying to summarize this for you, if you
hadn't already fingered that out as yet, as I 'lean' towards
actual numbers and formulae to support some of my assertions..
Here's an example of how the numbers were estimated, along with
the basic premises used to extrapolate them, from detailed
questionnaires and national trade databases..
Abstract..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm
Data methodologies and premises.. Oh, and numbers..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/factors.htm
Some estimates of how this effects the troposphere..
Yeah, the IPCC page..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Climate change projections from the UK meteorological office..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
And, in the last 100 years, a graph of the temperature index..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
Hurricanes and estimates of that situation..
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-...
http://www.realclimate.org/tar_fig_2_6.gif
An interesting quote..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html
"The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet
and all of us face uncertain consequences if the temperature rise
crosses the 2 degree threshold. We need to make sense of this
challenge - not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific
validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office
has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this"
--Robert Napier, Met Office Chairman
pointing to peer-reviewed scientific papers that can answer
There are many dozens of papers purporting to show trends,
you should know how to look that up for yourself by now.
Trends are not sufficient. I'm looking for studies showing
conclusive evidence causally linking the burning of petroleum
to global warming.
A view from outside of the 'box'..
http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/PERE/conference/papers/parikh.pdf
Some of the considerations used to reach empirical evidence..
http://www.rff.org/~kopp/working_papers/meta_modeling_report.pdf
A paper stating population and industrial growth, with numbers..
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/env70/
There must be such a paper out there, because global warming
proponents are constantly harping about the key role played
by the burning of petroleum.
And the emissions of CO2, methane, as well as particulate matter..
Yes, there are several dozens of them, as the premise isn't all
that new, and does build upon decades of studies, data and such..
And, recall that I've simply refuted a supposed 'ruse' by
pointing out that there is a dearth of reliable information
and peer-reviewed science publications that indicate otherwise..
Let's see the papers, then we can discuss what is and is not a ruse.
Dig into what I've provided and reach for your own conclusions..
Surely, such a study exists.
Have you tried looking for such?
I've spend many hours looking for such papers. Perhaps I
don't know the proper terminology?
Hrrmmm, I couldn't say for certain, though sometimes the order
that you put your keyword search into, like math operands,
have a certain order of precedences that can help you..
F'rinstance, I used Altavista.com, instead of Google. Then
entered "CO2" into the search field for a general class. Then
I used the term "anthropocentric" to narrow it down somewhat,
and used "petroleum" as a specific detail I wanted to find..
It might seem confusing at first, but I've found that if I
start with a general term, and then worry it down to the
specifics I want to know, I get a lower "noise floor"..
And for you to claim that the cessation of burning fossil fuels
could stop global warming, [..]
You're misquoting me. I said, "Quite possibly.."
What's the difference?
The difference is that I'm not stating that one single factor
is responsible in such a complex system, nor can any single
factor cause such a complex system to reverse all the others.
Our planet's climate and weather is a system seeking equilibrium
and is 'powered' by several energy inputs, so to speak. To single
out just the burning of fossil fuels as a solution is folly, in
my humble estimations. However, that is unlikely to happen in
any event and doesn't even enter into the range of possible
solutions that can practically be implemented, as far as I
can speak generally to this subject, on a political newsgroup..
--See subject header for details, console monkey..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jeering klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 12:59:08 PM |
|
|
"jeering klutz" <jkraus_1906@onenet.net> exhibited OCD when:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the pathology exhibited by:
....
When are you going to respond to the facts I posted for you?
Nope, but I can easily provide those, with abstracts, excerpts and
conclusions. Problem is, how much time do I think it's worth to
put up with someone badgering me for "more cites" when the task
of using a search engine would likely teach you how to fish,
rather than me wasting hours catching the fish for you..
I have attempted to find the type of papers I just described above.
It isn't easy, I can assure you of that.. There are quite a few more
web-sites trying to dispute the causes than reputable research reports
supporting such a hypothesis, if you hadn't already noticed.
Can't find a single one, even when I start from what look like
promising sources. Nobody on usenet (that I've seen anyway) has
yet coughed up a single citation to such a paper.
There aren't a lot of degreed scientists on the Usenet political
forums, though I suppose that should 'want' for an explanation
(while I'm digging out some valid studies for you to peruse)..
The profession of scientific research itself is 'political' in
some ways more 'ripe' with dissent than the political environment
we see presented (a generous term itself) on television and print.
The difference being that "modern journalism" isn't as rigorously
peer-reviewed as the academic research papers presented today.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of details involved
in the formal study of the environment, which makes it all too
easy for 'outsiders' (with apologies to Dr. Sue Hinton) to dismiss
out of hand an alarming number of factors that come into play
so far as 'anthropocentric' causes of 'global warming' goes.
I'm having difficulty trying to summarize this for you, if you
hadn't already fingered that out as yet, as I 'lean' towards
actual numbers and formulae to support some of my assertions..
Here's an example of how the numbers were estimated, along with
the basic premises used to extrapolate them, from detailed
questionnaires and national trade databases..
Abstract..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm
Data methodologies and premises.. Oh, and numbers..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/factors.htm
Some estimates of how this effects the troposphere..
Yeah, the IPCC page..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Climate change projections from the UK meteorological office..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
And, in the last 100 years, a graph of the temperature index..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
Hurricanes and estimates of that situation..
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-...
http://www.realclimate.org/tar_fig_2_6.gif
An interesting quote..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html
"The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet
and all of us face uncertain consequences if the temperature rise
crosses the 2 degree threshold. We need to make sense of this
challenge - not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific
validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office
has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this"
--Robert Napier, Met Office Chairman
pointing to peer-reviewed scientific papers that can answer
There are many dozens of papers purporting to show trends,
you should know how to look that up for yourself by now.
Trends are not sufficient. I'm looking for studies showing
conclusive evidence causally linking the burning of petroleum
to global warming.
A view from outside of the 'box'..
http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/PERE/conference/papers/parikh.pdf
Some of the considerations used to reach empirical evidence..
http://www.rff.org/~kopp/working_papers/meta_modeling_report.pdf
A paper stating population and industrial growth, with numbers..
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/env70/
There must be such a paper out there, because global warming
proponents are constantly harping about the key role played
by the burning of petroleum.
And the emissions of CO2, methane, as well as particulate matter..
Yes, there are several dozens of them, as the premise isn't all
that new, and does build upon decades of studies, data and such..
And, recall that I've simply refuted a supposed 'ruse' by
pointing out that there is a dearth of reliable information
and peer-reviewed science publications that indicate otherwise..
Let's see the papers, then we can discuss what is and is not a ruse.
Dig into what I've provided and reach for your own conclusions..
Surely, such a study exists.
Have you tried looking for such?
I've spend many hours looking for such papers. Perhaps I
don't know the proper terminology?
Hrrmmm, I couldn't say for certain, though sometimes the order
that you put your keyword search into, like math operands,
have a certain order of precedences that can help you..
F'rinstance, I used Altavista.com, instead of Google. Then
entered "CO2" into the search field for a general class. Then
I used the term "anthropocentric" to narrow it down somewhat,
and used "petroleum" as a specific detail I wanted to find..
It might seem confusing at first, but I've found that if I
start with a general term, and then worry it down to the
specifics I want to know, I get a lower "noise floor"..
And for you to claim that the cessation of burning fossil fuels
could stop global warming, [..]
You're misquoting me. I said, "Quite possibly.."
What's the difference?
The difference is that I'm not stating that one single factor
is responsible in such a complex system, nor can any single
factor cause such a complex system to reverse all the others.
Our planet's climate and weather is a system seeking equilibrium
and is 'powered' by several energy inputs, so to speak. To single
out just the burning of fossil fuels as a solution is folly, in
my humble estimations. However, that is unlikely to happen in
any event and doesn't even enter into the range of possible
solutions that can practically be implemented, as far as I
can speak generally to this subject, on a political newsgroup..
--See subject header for details, console monkey..
.. .
--*>cricket.wav<*
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: ... |
08 Jun 2007 12:30:32 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 12:20 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jerky klutz" exhibited OCD when:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the pathology exhibited by:
"jerky klutz" groveled for more attention from:
Kurt Lochner was chiding the intentional ignorance of:
"jerky klutz" whined along with:
"lacking comprehension" <dara...@charter.net> quoted from:
NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming
In video, Griffin says he wishes he'd stayed out of debate on climate
effects.
Updated: 7:17 p.m. PT June 5, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
Unfortunately, ALL professional science is far more political
than technical[..]
How would you know, console monkey?
--It's not like you're degreed in the sciences..
A brief introduction[..]
Evasion noted and laughed at..
--Again..
brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
*>LOL!<* Thanks for again proving my point..
When are you going to respond to the facts I posted for you?
Nope, but I can easily provide those, with abstracts, excerpts and
conclusions. Problem is, how much time do I think it's worth to
put up with someone badgering me for "more cites" when the task
of using a search engine would likely teach you how to fish,
rather than me wasting hours catching the fish for you..
I have attempted to find the type of papers I just described above.
It isn't easy, I can assure you of that.. There are quite a few more
web-sites trying to dispute the causes than reputable research reports
supporting such a hypothesis, if you hadn't already noticed.
Can't find a single one, even when I start from what look like
promising sources. Nobody on usenet (that I've seen anyway) has
yet coughed up a single citation to such a paper.
There aren't a lot of degreed scientists on the Usenet political
forums, though I suppose that should 'want' for an explanation
(while I'm digging out some valid studies for you to peruse)..
The profession of scientific research itself is 'political' in
some ways more 'ripe' with dissent than the political environment
we see presented (a generous term itself) on television and print.
The difference being that "modern journalism" isn't as rigorously
peer-reviewed as the academic research papers presented today.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of details involved
in the formal study of the environment, which makes it all too
easy for 'outsiders' (with apologies to Dr. Sue Hinton) to dismiss
out of hand an alarming number of factors that come into play
so far as 'anthropocentric' causes of 'global warming' goes.
I'm having difficulty trying to summarize this for you, if you
hadn't already fingered that out as yet, as I 'lean' towards
actual numbers and formulae to support some of my assertions..
Here's an example of how the numbers were estimated, along with
the basic premises used to extrapolate them, from detailed
questionnaires and national trade databases..
Abstract..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm
Data methodologies and premises.. Oh, and numbers..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/factors.htm
Some estimates of how this effects the troposphere..
Yeah, the IPCC page..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Climate change projections from the UK meteorological office..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
And, in the last 100 years, a graph of the temperature index..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
Hurricanes and estimates of that situation..
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-...
http://www.realclimate.org/tar_fig_2_6.gif
An interesting quote..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html
"The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet
and all of us face uncertain consequences if the temperature rise
crosses the 2 degree threshold. We need to make sense of this
challenge - not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific
validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office
has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this"
--Robert Napier, Met Office Chairman
pointing to peer-reviewed scientific papers that can answer
There are many dozens of papers purporting to show trends,
you should know how to look that up for yourself by now.
Trends are not sufficient. I'm looking for studies showing
conclusive evidence causally linking the burning of petroleum
to global warming.
A view from outside of the 'box'..
http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/PERE/conference/papers/parikh.pdf
Some of the considerations used to reach empirical evidence..
http://www.rff.org/~kopp/working_papers/meta_modeling_report.pdf
A paper stating population and industrial growth, with numbers..
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/env70/
There must be such a paper out there, because global warming
proponents are constantly harping about the key role played
by the burning of petroleum.
And the emissions of CO2, methane, as well as particulate matter..
Yes, there are several dozens of them, as the premise isn't all
that new, and does build upon decades of studies, data and such..
And, recall that I've simply refuted a supposed 'ruse' by
pointing out that there is a dearth of reliable information
and peer-reviewed science publications that indicate otherwise..
Let's see the papers, then we can discuss what is and is not a ruse.
Dig into what I've provided and reach for your own conclusions..
Surely, such a study exists.
Have you tried looking for such?
I've spend many hours looking for such papers. Perhaps I
don't know the proper terminology?
Hrrmmm, I couldn't say for certain, though sometimes the order
that you put your keyword search into, like math operands,
have a certain order of precedences that can help you..
F'rinstance, I used Altavista.com, instead of Google. Then
entered "CO2" into the search field for a general class. Then
I used the term "anthropocentric" to narrow it down somewhat,
and used "petroleum" as a specific detail I wanted to find..
It might seem confusing at first, but I've found that if I
start with a general term, and then worry it down to the
specifics I want to know, I get a lower "noise floor"..
And for you to claim that the cessation of burning fossil fuels
could stop global warming, [..]
You're misquoting me. I said, "Quite possibly.."
What's the difference?
The difference is that I'm not stating that one single factor
is responsible in such a complex system, nor can any single
factor cause such a complex system to reverse all the others.
Our planet's climate and weather is a system seeking equilibrium
and is 'powered' by several energy inputs, so to speak. To single
out just the burning of fossil fuels as a solution is folly, in
my humble estimations. However, that is unlikely to happen in
any event and doesn't even enter into the range of possible
solutions that can practically be implemented, as far as I
can speak generally to this subject, on a political newsgroup..
--See subject header for details, console monkey..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jerky klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 12:49:53 PM |
|
|
"jerky klutz" exhibited OCD when:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the pathology exhibited by:
....
When are you going to respond to the facts I posted for you?
Nope, but I can easily provide those, with abstracts, excerpts and
conclusions. Problem is, how much time do I think it's worth to
put up with someone badgering me for "more cites" when the task
of using a search engine would likely teach you how to fish,
rather than me wasting hours catching the fish for you..
I have attempted to find the type of papers I just described above.
It isn't easy, I can assure you of that.. There are quite a few more
web-sites trying to dispute the causes than reputable research reports
supporting such a hypothesis, if you hadn't already noticed.
Can't find a single one, even when I start from what look like
promising sources. Nobody on usenet (that I've seen anyway) has
yet coughed up a single citation to such a paper.
There aren't a lot of degreed scientists on the Usenet political
forums, though I suppose that should 'want' for an explanation
(while I'm digging out some valid studies for you to peruse)..
The profession of scientific research itself is 'political' in
some ways more 'ripe' with dissent than the political environment
we see presented (a generous term itself) on television and print.
The difference being that "modern journalism" isn't as rigorously
peer-reviewed as the academic research papers presented today.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of details involved
in the formal study of the environment, which makes it all too
easy for 'outsiders' (with apologies to Dr. Sue Hinton) to dismiss
out of hand an alarming number of factors that come into play
so far as 'anthropocentric' causes of 'global warming' goes.
I'm having difficulty trying to summarize this for you, if you
hadn't already fingered that out as yet, as I 'lean' towards
actual numbers and formulae to support some of my assertions..
Here's an example of how the numbers were estimated, along with
the basic premises used to extrapolate them, from detailed
questionnaires and national trade databases..
Abstract..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm
Data methodologies and premises.. Oh, and numbers..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/factors.htm
Some estimates of how this effects the troposphere..
Yeah, the IPCC page..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Climate change projections from the UK meteorological office..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
And, in the last 100 years, a graph of the temperature index..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
Hurricanes and estimates of that situation..
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-...
http://www.realclimate.org/tar_fig_2_6.gif
An interesting quote..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html
"The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet
and all of us face uncertain consequences if the temperature rise
crosses the 2 degree threshold. We need to make sense of this
challenge - not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific
validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office
has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this"
--Robert Napier, Met Office Chairman
pointing to peer-reviewed scientific papers that can answer
There are many dozens of papers purporting to show trends,
you should know how to look that up for yourself by now.
Trends are not sufficient. I'm looking for studies showing
conclusive evidence causally linking the burning of petroleum
to global warming.
A view from outside of the 'box'..
http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/PERE/conference/papers/parikh.pdf
Some of the considerations used to reach empirical evidence..
http://www.rff.org/~kopp/working_papers/meta_modeling_report.pdf
A paper stating population and industrial growth, with numbers..
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/env70/
There must be such a paper out there, because global warming
proponents are constantly harping about the key role played
by the burning of petroleum.
And the emissions of CO2, methane, as well as particulate matter..
Yes, there are several dozens of them, as the premise isn't all
that new, and does build upon decades of studies, data and such..
And, recall that I've simply refuted a supposed 'ruse' by
pointing out that there is a dearth of reliable information
and peer-reviewed science publications that indicate otherwise..
Let's see the papers, then we can discuss what is and is not a ruse.
Dig into what I've provided and reach for your own conclusions..
Surely, such a study exists.
Have you tried looking for such?
I've spend many hours looking for such papers. Perhaps I
don't know the proper terminology?
Hrrmmm, I couldn't say for certain, though sometimes the order
that you put your keyword search into, like math operands,
have a certain order of precedences that can help you..
F'rinstance, I used Altavista.com, instead of Google. Then
entered "CO2" into the search field for a general class. Then
I used the term "anthropocentric" to narrow it down somewhat,
and used "petroleum" as a specific detail I wanted to find..
It might seem confusing at first, but I've found that if I
start with a general term, and then worry it down to the
specifics I want to know, I get a lower "noise floor"..
And for you to claim that the cessation of burning fossil fuels
could stop global warming, [..]
You're misquoting me. I said, "Quite possibly.."
What's the difference?
The difference is that I'm not stating that one single factor
is responsible in such a complex system, nor can any single
factor cause such a complex system to reverse all the others.
Our planet's climate and weather is a system seeking equilibrium
and is 'powered' by several energy inputs, so to speak. To single
out just the burning of fossil fuels as a solution is folly, in
my humble estimations. However, that is unlikely to happen in
any event and doesn't even enter into the range of possible
solutions that can practically be implemented, as far as I
can speak generally to this subject, on a political newsgroup..
--See subject header for details, console monkey..- Hide quoted text -
A brief introduction to Lochner
Still running away from the facts, console monkey?
--See subject header for details..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: ... |
08 Jun 2007 12:54:37 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 12:49 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jerky klutz" exhibited OCD when:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the pathology exhibited by:
...
When are you going to respond to the facts I posted for you?
Nope, but I can easily provide those, with abstracts, excerpts and
conclusions. Problem is, how much time do I think it's worth to
put up with someone badgering me for "more cites" when the task
of using a search engine would likely teach you how to fish,
rather than me wasting hours catching the fish for you..
I have attempted to find the type of papers I just described above.
It isn't easy, I can assure you of that.. There are quite a few more
web-sites trying to dispute the causes than reputable research reports
supporting such a hypothesis, if you hadn't already noticed.
Can't find a single one, even when I start from what look like
promising sources. Nobody on usenet (that I've seen anyway) has
yet coughed up a single citation to such a paper.
There aren't a lot of degreed scientists on the Usenet political
forums, though I suppose that should 'want' for an explanation
(while I'm digging out some valid studies for you to peruse)..
The profession of scientific research itself is 'political' in
some ways more 'ripe' with dissent than the political environment
we see presented (a generous term itself) on television and print.
The difference being that "modern journalism" isn't as rigorously
peer-reviewed as the academic research papers presented today.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of details involved
in the formal study of the environment, which makes it all too
easy for 'outsiders' (with apologies to Dr. Sue Hinton) to dismiss
out of hand an alarming number of factors that come into play
so far as 'anthropocentric' causes of 'global warming' goes.
I'm having difficulty trying to summarize this for you, if you
hadn't already fingered that out as yet, as I 'lean' towards
actual numbers and formulae to support some of my assertions..
Here's an example of how the numbers were estimated, along with
the basic premises used to extrapolate them, from detailed
questionnaires and national trade databases..
Abstract..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm
Data methodologies and premises.. Oh, and numbers..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/factors.htm
Some estimates of how this effects the troposphere..
Yeah, the IPCC page..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Climate change projections from the UK meteorological office..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
And, in the last 100 years, a graph of the temperature index..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
Hurricanes and estimates of that situation..
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-...
http://www.realclimate.org/tar_fig_2_6.gif
An interesting quote..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html
"The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet
and all of us face uncertain consequences if the temperature rise
crosses the 2 degree threshold. We need to make sense of this
challenge - not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific
validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office
has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this"
--Robert Napier, Met Office Chairman
pointing to peer-reviewed scientific papers that can answer
There are many dozens of papers purporting to show trends,
you should know how to look that up for yourself by now.
Trends are not sufficient. I'm looking for studies showing
conclusive evidence causally linking the burning of petroleum
to global warming.
A view from outside of the 'box'..
http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/PERE/conference/papers/parikh.pdf
Some of the considerations used to reach empirical evidence..
http://www.rff.org/~kopp/working_papers/meta_modeling_report.pdf
A paper stating population and industrial growth, with numbers..
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/env70/
There must be such a paper out there, because global warming
proponents are constantly harping about the key role played
by the burning of petroleum.
And the emissions of CO2, methane, as well as particulate matter..
Yes, there are several dozens of them, as the premise isn't all
that new, and does build upon decades of studies, data and such..
And, recall that I've simply refuted a supposed 'ruse' by
pointing out that there is a dearth of reliable information
and peer-reviewed science publications that indicate otherwise..
Let's see the papers, then we can discuss what is and is not a ruse.
Dig into what I've provided and reach for your own conclusions..
Surely, such a study exists.
Have you tried looking for such?
I've spend many hours looking for such papers. Perhaps I
don't know the proper terminology?
Hrrmmm, I couldn't say for certain, though sometimes the order
that you put your keyword search into, like math operands,
have a certain order of precedences that can help you..
F'rinstance, I used Altavista.com, instead of Google. Then
entered "CO2" into the search field for a general class. Then
I used the term "anthropocentric" to narrow it down somewhat,
and used "petroleum" as a specific detail I wanted to find..
It might seem confusing at first, but I've found that if I
start with a general term, and then worry it down to the
specifics I want to know, I get a lower "noise floor"..
And for you to claim that the cessation of burning fossil fuels
could stop global warming, [..]
You're misquoting me. I said, "Quite possibly.."
What's the difference?
The difference is that I'm not stating that one single factor
is responsible in such a complex system, nor can any single
factor cause such a complex system to reverse all the others.
Our planet's climate and weather is a system seeking equilibrium
and is 'powered' by several energy inputs, so to speak. To single
out just the burning of fossil fuels as a solution is folly, in
my humble estimations. However, that is unlikely to happen in
any event and doesn't even enter into the range of possible
solutions that can practically be implemented, as far as I
can speak generally to this subject, on a political newsgroup..
--See subject header for details, console monkey..- Hide quoted text -
A brief introduction to Lochner
Still running away from the facts, console monkey?
--See subject header for details..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jeering klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 01:04:14 PM |
|
|
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: ... |
08 Jun 2007 01:06:45 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 1:04 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
A brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jeering klutz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 01:09:34 PM |
|
|
"jeering klutz" <jkraus_1906@onenet.net> whimpered and groveled before:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
[...]
*>LOL!<*
A brief introduction to Klutzian Pseudo-Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Jeering Klutz are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Klutzian "logic" isn't,
and IS appallingly systemic with all verbal communication about
imagined events in the 'world' of Jerky Klutz.
4. Klutzian Pseudo-Logic does not exist outside of the mind of
Jeering Klutz. It isn't necessary to read Jerky Klutz's postings
to understand his basic lack of principles.
5. In the even that someone brings up a contradicting fact or
source of information that proves Klutzian Pseudo-Logic false,
Klutzian Pseudo-Logic allows for evasions and ad hominem responses.
6. In the event that heaps even more criticism of Klutzian "logic",
make up a number of false claims about the opponent and post
repeatedly like a confused and very spoiled child while on at
the location of employment, without regard for consequences.
--See subject header for details..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: ... |
08 Jun 2007 01:11:52 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 1:09 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jeering klutz" <jkraus_1...@onenet.net> whimpered and groveled before:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
[...]
*>LOL!<*
A brief introduction to Klutzian Pseudo-Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Jeering Klutz are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Klutzian "logic" isn't,
and IS appallingly systemic with all verbal communication about
imagined events in the 'world' of Jerky Klutz.
4. Klutzian Pseudo-Logic does not exist outside of the mind of
Jeering Klutz. It isn't necessary to read Jerky Klutz's postings
to understand his basic lack of principles.
5. In the even that someone brings up a contradicting fact or
source of information that proves Klutzian Pseudo-Logic false,
Klutzian Pseudo-Logic allows for evasions and ad hominem responses.
6. In the event that heaps even more criticism of Klutzian "logic",
make up a number of false claims about the opponent and post
repeatedly like a confused and very spoiled child while on at
the location of employment, without regard for consequences.
--See subject header for details..
A brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jeering putz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 01:15:21 PM |
|
|
"jeering klutz" <jkraus_1906@onenet.net> whimpered and groveled before:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
[...]
*>LOL!<*
A brief introduction to Klutzian Pseudo-Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Jeering Klutz are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Klutzian "logic" isn't,
and IS appallingly systemic with all verbal communication about
imagined events in the 'world' of Jerky Klutz.
4. Klutzian Pseudo-Logic does not exist outside of the mind of
Jeering Klutz. It isn't necessary to read Jerky Klutz's postings
to understand his basic lack of principles.
5. In the even that someone brings up a contradicting fact or
source of information that proves Klutzian Pseudo-Logic false,
Klutzian Pseudo-Logic allows for evasions and ad hominem responses.
6. In the event that heaps even more criticism of Klutzian "logic",
make up a number of false claims about the opponent and post
repeatedly like a confused and very spoiled child while on at
the location of employment, without regard for consequences.
--See subject header for details..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: ... |
08 Jun 2007 01:28:02 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 1:15 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jeering klutz" <jkraus_1...@onenet.net> whimpered and groveled before:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
[...]
*>LOL!<*
A brief introduction to Klutzian Pseudo-Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Jeering Klutz are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Klutzian "logic" isn't,
and IS appallingly systemic with all verbal communication about
imagined events in the 'world' of Jerky Klutz.
4. Klutzian Pseudo-Logic does not exist outside of the mind of
Jeering Klutz. It isn't necessary to read Jerky Klutz's postings
to understand his basic lack of principles.
5. In the even that someone brings up a contradicting fact or
source of information that proves Klutzian Pseudo-Logic false,
Klutzian Pseudo-Logic allows for evasions and ad hominem responses.
6. In the event that heaps even more criticism of Klutzian "logic",
make up a number of false claims about the opponent and post
repeatedly like a confused and very spoiled child while on at
the location of employment, without regard for consequences.
--See subject header for details..
A brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jeering putz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
08 Jun 2007 07:42:05 PM |
|
|
"jeering klutz" <jkraus_1906@onenet.net> whimpered and groveled before:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
[...]
*>LOL!<*
A brief introduction to Klutzian Pseudo-Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Jeering Klutz are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Klutzian "logic" isn't,
and IS appallingly systemic with all verbal communication about
imagined events in the 'world' of Jerky Klutz.
4. Klutzian Pseudo-Logic does not exist outside of the mind of
Jeering Klutz. It isn't necessary to read Jerky Klutz's postings
to understand his basic lack of principles.
5. In the even that someone brings up a contradicting fact or
source of information that proves Klutzian Pseudo-Logic false,
Klutzian Pseudo-Logic allows for evasions and ad hominem responses.
6. In the event that heaps even more criticism of Klutzian "logic",
make up a number of false claims about the opponent and post
repeatedly like a confused and very spoiled child while on at
the location of employment, without regard for consequences.
--See subject header for details..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: ... |
09 Jun 2007 09:20:50 AM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 7:42 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
"jeering klutz" <jkraus_1...@onenet.net> whimpered and groveled before:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
[...]
*>LOL!<*
A brief introduction to Klutzian Pseudo-Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Jeering Klutz are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Klutzian "logic" isn't,
and IS appallingly systemic with all verbal communication about
imagined events in the 'world' of Jerky Klutz.
4. Klutzian Pseudo-Logic does not exist outside of the mind of
Jeering Klutz. It isn't necessary to read Jerky Klutz's postings
to understand his basic lack of principles.
5. In the even that someone brings up a contradicting fact or
source of information that proves Klutzian Pseudo-Logic false,
Klutzian Pseudo-Logic allows for evasions and ad hominem responses.
6. In the event that heaps even more criticism of Klutzian "logic",
make up a number of false claims about the opponent and post
repeatedly like a confused and very spoiled child while on at
the location of employment, without regard for consequences.
--See subject header for details..
A brief introduction to Lochnerian Logic
1. Any and all statements made by Kurt Lochner are logically valid.
2. Any and all statements made by anyone else are logically false.
3. Unlike mathematical or Aristotelian logic, Lochnerian logic can
be,
and IS applied systematically to all verbal communication about real
world events.
4. Lochnerian Logic does not exist outside of the mind of Kurt
Lochner. It is necessary to read Kurt Lochner's postings to
understand its basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: "jeering putz" regrets remarks on global warming.. |
09 Jun 2007 09:27:11 AM |
|
|
"jeering klutz" <jkraus@onenet.net> whimpered and groveled before:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious:
Boring Friday at the ONENET.NET office, Jeering?
--I can change that, if you'd like..
[...]
*>LOL!<*
You still haven't commented back on the results I posted for you..
</repost>
Nope, but I can easily provide those, with abstracts, excerpts and
conclusions. Problem is, how much time do I think it's worth to
put up with someone badgering me for "more cites" when the task
of using a search engine would likely teach you how to fish,
rather than me wasting hours catching the fish for you..
I have attempted to find the type of papers I just described above.
It isn't easy, I can assure you of that.. There are quite a few more
web-sites trying to dispute the causes than reputable research reports
supporting such a hypothesis, if you hadn't already noticed.
Can't find a single one, even when I start from what look like
promising sources. Nobody on usenet (that I've seen anyway) has
yet coughed up a single citation to such a paper.
There aren't a lot of degreed scientists on the Usenet political
forums, though I suppose that should 'want' for an explanation
(while I'm digging out some valid studies for you to peruse)..
The profession of scientific research itself is 'political' in
some ways more 'ripe' with dissent than the political environment
we see presented (a generous term itself) on television and print.
The difference being that "modern journalism" isn't as rigorously
peer-reviewed as the academic research papers presented today.
That said, there is an overwhelming amount of details involved
in the formal study of the environment, which makes it all too
easy for 'outsiders' (with apologies to Dr. Sue Hinton) to dismiss
out of hand an alarming number of factors that come into play
so far as 'anthropocentric' causes of 'global warming' goes.
I'm having difficulty trying to summarize this for you, if you
hadn't already fingered that out as yet, as I 'lean' towards
actual numbers and formulae to support some of my assertions..
Here's an example of how the numbers were estimated, along with
the basic premises used to extrapolate them, from detailed
questionnaires and national trade databases..
Abstract..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm
Data methodologies and premises.. Oh, and numbers..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/factors.htm
Some estimates of how this effects the troposphere..
Yeah, the IPCC page..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Climate change projections from the UK meteorological office..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
And, in the last 100 years, a graph of the temperature index..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
Hurricanes and estimates of that situation..
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/tar_fig_2_6.gif
An interesting quote..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html
"The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet
and all of us face uncertain consequences if the temperature rise
crosses the 2 degree threshold. We need to make sense of this
challenge - not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific
validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office
has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this"
--Robert Napier, Met Office Chairman
pointing to peer-reviewed scientific papers that can answer
There are many dozens of papers purporting to show trends,
you should know how to look that up for yourself by now.
Trends are not sufficient. I'm looking for studies showing
conclusive evidence causally linking the burning of petroleum
to global warming.
A view from outside of the 'box'..
http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/PERE/conference/papers/parikh.pdf
Some of the considerations used to reach empirical evidence..
http://www.rff.org/~kopp/working_papers/meta_modeling_report.pdf
A paper stating population and industrial growth, with numbers..
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/env70/
There must be such a paper out there, because global warming
proponents are constantly harping about the key role played
by the burning of petroleum.
And the emissions of CO2, methane, as well as particulate matter..
Yes, there are several dozens of them, as the premise isn't all
that new, and does build upon decades of studies, data and such..
And, recall that I've simply refuted a supposed 'ruse' by
pointing out that there is a dearth of reliable information
and peer-reviewed science publications that indicate otherwise..
Let's see the papers, then we can discuss what is and is not a ruse.
Dig into what I've provided and reach for your own conclusions..
Surely, such a study exists.
Have you tried looking for such?
I've spend many hours looking for such papers. Perhaps I
don't know the proper terminology?
Hrrmmm, I couldn't say for certain, though sometimes the order
that you put your keyword search into, like math operands,
have a certain order of precedences that can help you..
F'rinstance, I used Altavista.com, instead of Google. Then
entered "CO2" into the search field for a general class. Then
I used the term "anthropocentric" to narrow it down somewhat,
and used "petroleum" as a specific detail I wanted to find..
It might seem confusing at first, but I've found that if I
start with a general term, and then worry it down to the
specifics I want to know, I get a lower "noise floor"..
And for you to claim that the cessation of burning fossil fuels
could stop global warming, [..]
You're misquoting me. I said, "Quite possibly.."
What's the difference?
The difference is that I'm not stating that one single factor
is responsible in such a complex system, nor can any single
factor cause such a complex system to reverse all the others.
Our planet's climate and weather is a system seeking equilibrium
and is 'powered' by several energy inputs, so to speak. To single
out just the burning of fossil fuels as a solution is folly, in
my humble estimations. However, that is unlikely to happen in
any event and doesn't even enter into the range of possible
solutions that can practically be implemented, as far as I
can speak generally to this subject, and you have yet to even
acknowledge th | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
