Global Warming

Howard Kveck wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Consider the source, Bill. Calling you names and insinuating you're
teh gay *is*
the intellectual part of his argument.

Talking to Tom is like living in a Fellini movie. I keep expecting a
midget nun to run out and heard him back into the padded wagon. I know,
kinky.

--
Bill Asher

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
(rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
notice this pretty quickly.

Pete-

Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.

Tom, you screwed up. You thought you were reading a conservative-friendly
publication, but should have known better. ALL the media is owned by the
liberal establishment. What you read was a deliberate plant, an article
penned by an environmentalist wanting to discredit the conservatives by
feeding information that he knew would make the reader look foolish when
regurgitating the claims.

ALL the media is run by the liberal environmentalist establishment, even
Rush is a shill for them. You think he's actually made some of his
embarrassing remarks out of stupidity? C'mon. The Michael J Fox stuff?
Deliberate. The Vince Foster debacle? Carefully planned. His constant
attacks on homosexuals? An attempt by the far-left to force their brethren
out of the closet and take action.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to
>> keep
>> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a
>> couple
>> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
>> than a small fortune.
> They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to
> be
> able to cope with rising tides!

Quoted message said:

That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said
that
the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
decommissioned.

Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
(rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
notice this pretty quickly.

Pete-

Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
(rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
notice this pretty quickly.

Pete-

Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.

Tom, you screwed up. You thought you were reading a conservative-friendly
publication, but should have known better. ALL the media is owned by the
liberal establishment. What you read was a deliberate plant, an article
penned by an environmentalist wanting to discredit the conservatives by
feeding information that he knew would make the reader look foolish when
regurgitating the claims.

ALL the media is run by the liberal environmentalist establishment, even
Rush is a shill for them. You think he's actually made some of his
embarrassing remarks out of stupidity? C'mon. The Michael J Fox stuff?
Deliberate. The Vince Foster debacle? Carefully planned. His constant
attacks on homosexuals? An attempt by the far-left to force their brethren
out of the closet and take action.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to
>> keep
>> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a
>> couple
>> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
>> than a small fortune.
> They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to
> be
> able to cope with rising tides!

Quoted message said:

That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said
that
the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
decommissioned.

Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
(rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
notice this pretty quickly.

Pete-

Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> The
> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
> were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.

Quoted message said:

There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
to lies.

Tom:

You said:

"I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
leftists."

Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of
4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay
Area, it seemed mild"?

Bill, you can pretend that 4 are more dangerous than 11 if you wish.

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> The
> point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
> were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.

Quoted message said:

There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
to lies.

Tom:

You said:

"I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
leftists."

Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of
4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay
Area, it seemed mild"?

Bill, you can pretend that 4 are more dangerous than 11 if you wish.

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

On Oct 30, 4:19 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

That article is about partical matter pollution and from what I can
tell, it doesn't really include carbon emissions. For example, the
article states, ""Particulate matter," also known as particle
pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles."

Quoted message said:

Doesn't say anything about carbon emissions, does it? My guess is
that if carbon emissions has anything to do with this, it's very small
as they don't even bother to mention it in the article.

Quoted message said:

Want to try again?

This took me 10 seconds. After this you're on your own self-delusional
trip--be my guest.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35332

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Steve,

I'm not delusional. The issue was what benefits would be derived from
reducing carbon emissions. You sent a link to a web article about
particle pollution which had nothing to do with carbon emissions. I
pointed that out, and you responded to a separate web article about
carbon monoxide pollution, which doesn't have anything to do with your
early reference to particle pollution.

You don't need to get snippy with me because you provided a poor
response, which I noted for you.

Your second response makes more sense, but that notwithstanding, the
article you reference doesn't say much of anything about how great the
problem is with regards to CO emissions or how great the reduction in
CO emissions must be before we see significant improvements in the
related health issues. Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and which
leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap with
reduced carbon emissions?

On Oct 30, 4:19 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

That article is about partical matter pollution and from what I can
tell, it doesn't really include carbon emissions. For example, the
article states, ""Particulate matter," also known as particle
pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles."

Quoted message said:

Doesn't say anything about carbon emissions, does it? My guess is
that if carbon emissions has anything to do with this, it's very small
as they don't even bother to mention it in the article.

Quoted message said:

Want to try again?

This took me 10 seconds. After this you're on your own self-delusional
trip--be my guest.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35332

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Steve,

I'm not delusional. The issue was what benefits would be derived from
reducing carbon emissions. You sent a link to a web article about
particle pollution which had nothing to do with carbon emissions. I
pointed that out, and you responded to a separate web article about
carbon monoxide pollution, which doesn't have anything to do with your
early reference to particle pollution.

You don't need to get snippy with me because you provided a poor
response, which I noted for you.

Your second response makes more sense, but that notwithstanding, the
article you reference doesn't say much of anything about how great the
problem is with regards to CO emissions or how great the reduction in
CO emissions must be before we see significant improvements in the
related health issues. Which leads me to conclude that if the numbers
were all that impressive they wouldn't have left them out, and which
leads me rephrase the question for you, what exactly are the
significant, quantifiable non-environmental benefits we'll reap with
reduced carbon emissions?

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I happen
to reside.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I happen
to reside.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

Kyle Legate said:

Scott wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?

Quoted message said:

Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.

Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.

Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
cost.

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

Kyle Legate said:

Scott wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?

Quoted message said:

Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.

Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.

Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
cost.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude 6?

A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I happen
to reside.

I used to love riding from SF down to Half Moon bay, San Gregorio, La
Honda, Sky line back to Half Moon & home! Back in the day!!
:-))

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Quoted message said:

Thank you very much, but know that Bob S will be unhappy with that.
He'll think I feel somehow encouraged to let loose with my ascii. If I
could get control of that personal issue, as much as I wish the guvmint
could get itself under control, well then I think I could support a few
more primates with all the newly found time. I might even have time to
ride/train!

Bob Schwartz said:

The decision of how many primates you'll be supporting isn't up to you.
It's up to Chung, if he makes any more primates.

Sounds like he sick of changing nappies on his existing mini-me primates.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I
happen to reside.

I used to love riding from SF down to Half Moon bay, San Gregorio, La
Honda, Sky line back to Half Moon & home! Back in the day!!
:-))

When really bored, you can go to www.ChainReaction.com/diary.htm and read
all about the latest Tuesday/Thursday-morning ride, which goes up Kings Mtn,
south on Skyline to 84, down west 84 to Old LaHonda, back to Sky L'onda and
down 84 into Woodside. 104 times/year, no matter what the weather (or
earthquake).

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Would you rather experience 10 magnitude 4 earthquakes, or 1 magnitude
> 6?
A moderate one caused some panic in Bay Area yesterday evening

An area in which, not coincidentally for my example, both Tom and I
happen to reside.

I used to love riding from SF down to Half Moon bay, San Gregorio, La
Honda, Sky line back to Half Moon & home! Back in the day!!
:-))

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

On 31 Oct, 03:03, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
>> out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
>> of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
>> than a small fortune.
> They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
> able to cope with rising tides!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
decommissioned.

Quoted message said:

Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
(rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
notice this pretty quickly.

Quoted message said:

Pete-

Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.

This is true: it doesn't work first time very often, and some gates
have to be given a kick (not literally!). But that is not a difficult
or very slow thing to do, and it gets done.

Pete

William Asher said:

Talking to Tom is like living in a Fellini movie. I keep expecting a
midget nun to run out and heard him back into the padded wagon. I know,
kinky.

Do they have midget nun throwing contests in Fellini movies ?

Bob Schwartz said:

Tom Kunich wrote:

[ A really good troll ]

After all these years I can't figure out why people still respond to this
[censored]. But lots of you do. Go figure.

Are you bragging about the new multi-threaded trolling co-routines ?

cyclintom said:

Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you
believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness? Some
of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are called that
because of the extremely high particulate matter injected into the air by
the trees and other plants in that area.

Yes but burning trees don't cause cancer:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_dieselcancer.html