rhino

Sagan's rut is his own religion ... he has been a false prophet of doom ... Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. .... A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened. The world is full of "scary smart guys" that know it all. The inspirational books sound more useful and "accurate". Good list you have going Dot. I'm not sure how well twi or anyone deals with the Bible and science, but science doesn't have much to offer on faith or spirituality, as far as I see. One guy my Dad read was Reinhold Niebuhr (a guy vpw also mentions in piffle) ... The Nature and Destiny of Man is one I have, but it turned out to be a little heady for me. :) But I'm told it does more than most to bridge "next life" Christian hope with real world problems ... or something like that. I guess I'm more asking about it than suggesting it. :)

LOL right, and how much is from man ... and how much from CO2? Even the Kyoto treaty, which would cripple our economy, would have made almost no difference. But tell me Hansen isn't an alarmist with a knack for hyperbole ... The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species…. Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. I read through a lot of that stuff, they say CO2 is the best explanation they currently have for the warming. And many definitely are emotional with their name calling of the "deniers". Others say we have to protect against the one in five risk. But what about the risk of eventual cooling. An ice age would be much more devastating than a one foot rise in ocean levels in the next century. Here is yet another scientist that says we don't know it all yet. Hold your horses. The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty." Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to be controversial. "I know some climate modelers will say that these results are interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global warming," he said. "But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right before we rely on their long term projections."

cman, your song worked ... really less than an hour after I listened, we got 1.3 inches, after almost nothing last month but it all came in 30 minutes, so I may have played it too loud :)

this year we had an early May and early June tropical storm ... Erin is the 5th TS, no hurricanes 2006 had only 4 tropical storms by this time 2005 had 4 hurricanes by this time, and 5 tropical storms that didn't become hurricanes ... then came TS Jose and Katrina and TS Lee, before the end of August ... 2004 had 3 hurricanes, 2 TS by now ... Hopefully Dean doesn't want to party on Bourbon Street ...

An "AGW cultist" is the opposite of an "AGW denier". Those that are true believers despite the science still being unsettled. The Gore movie claimed a rise of 20 feet in 100 years, IIRC, which has since been adjusted to one foot, maybe two. Gore's movie distorted facts incredibly and intentionally. The famous "hockey stick" graph was pure fraud. Not science. This sort of political maneuvering puts the whole AGW cult in perspective. Gore was making a political propaganda movie, not a science documentary. This is just one guys claim, but it seems feasible to me, and at least shows how possible it is to "jigger the numbers" to get results that will provide more funding. It is anecdotal from a PhD meteorologist that quit from NASA. First, there are no real climate modeling program or programs, as the term "climate model" would imply, because the variables are way too numerous. ... None of the batch programs for handling weather component data were really accurate either; they all had biases built into them and the boss would select which program to run for a batch of data with an eye to the answer he wanted to see. They were very keenly aware that warming and disaster added up to sweet, sweet revenue. One superior attitude I believe exists (and I think has been shown) is when peope feel they are so right, that is OK to overstate their case (like Gore's movie does) because it is SO important to correct this problem. But it is easy for YOUR project to become all important in your own mind. Another reason the "AGW cult" term fits. (its not my term) It is self righteous to claim YOU hold THE truth. What you said of me, I think applies to you. Your sources are biased, your claims overblown without evidence. I've read through some of the RealClimate site, the "non beleivers" think it is a biased site. The significance of NASA having to adjust those temps, is that it was found they were not honest with some of their numbers, and I believe they did not release how they got their numbers. The China thing was only a secondary point. It was showing they had not honestly dealt with the urban heat island effect, in China, as well as the US. Non-compliant surface stations were reported in the formal academic literature by Pielke and Davey (2005) who described a number of non-compliant sites in eastern Colorado. In NOAA's official response to this criticism, Vose et al (2005) said in effect - it doesn't matter. It's only eastern Colorado. You haven't proved that there are problems anywhere else in the United States. Now in response to problems with both station quality and adjustment software, Schmidt and Hansen say in effect, as NOAA did before them - it doesn't matter. It's only the United States. You haven't proved that there are problems anywhere else in the world. The same with the NASA headline claim that 2006 was the hottest year ever. They recognized that headlining they were wrong, that it was 1934, would be politically unacceptable, so they "buried" that story. NASA has a definite political bent. Even if the urban heat island effect is only 0.15oC, remember the AGW cult is basing their worship on only a 1oC change over a century. Well, he is the devil, but that is still cool. The point of my last link (and the one before) was that errors were downplayed. It is still a question how they adjust data from the urban areas. For NASA, there is much more money in showing warming, which introduces a bias, no way around it. Money talks. Rumrunner works on these models, and says small tweaks can flip results from warming to cooling, which is why the anecdotal evidence I noted above makes sense. They may present results that are backed with data that seems absolute, but the nitty gritty gets down to tiny little approximations that can flip results. Since you introduced the cult idea with one poster, surely you can see how easy it is to be swept along with the crowd and the love of money. I think there is a little more religion at the edge of science than you think. Most of these results are based on computer models, and some complain empiracle data has not always been acquired when available. I think there is a simple explanation for your apparent Keenan contradiction. It is not one or the other, it is both. If a station moved to a more urban influenced site, were adjustments made and how. And if it is unknown if stations were moved, that introduces a greater margin of error. Both questions make conclusions less conclusive. From my view, you are demonstrating your bias, in saying Keenan was not taken seriously. NASA admitted the error ... that is fact. So Keenan was taken seriously. You are trying too hard to dismiss that. I never said "conspiracy", I say "bias". If "2006 ... hottest year ever" is a headline, why isn't "1934 ... hottest year ever" a headline? The $50 billion funded guys don't like little guys messing with their funding. Not gonna change that headline ... not gonna do it ... as old Bush would say.

I saw the swindle (it had many real scientists who were very clear what they were saying) and I saw even more of the "debunking". Much of what I posted was from the supposed debunking. That is where they said there was a risk, maybe one in five. I only know of one guy that didn't like being used in the video, but what he said was true, IIRC. Right, the one AGW cultist that was trying to debunk the swindle was proud they had maybe shown that CO2 was at highest level in almost a million years. The other scientist said "what is so special about a million years". The point being, why do you get to choose your time frame to support your data. Why not use all the data? I don't think even the AGW cultists deny the basics of that chart above. The can look at fossil records to tell what plants were growing, rock types, etc. NASA gets a lot of money dependent partly on public opinion. They definitely have a political angle. (btw, that freon free foam has a 10 fold stronger tendency to break off and damage shuttles, but they use it anyway? not quite sure on that, need more research ... ) This kind of self righteousness is typical of the hard core left. Did you watch the swindle video? I saw it and all the debunking, which was not so great as you seem to think. You wholly accept the lefty view, and believe nearly 100% of real scientists believe in AGW. I've quoted RumRunner .. is he being played for a fool? True he can't make the best cheesecake (dooj says), but I'd say he is a real scientist, and knows real scientists. Krysilis seems to know quite a few things too, but I don't know her (?) background exactly. But you worked for Enron, and you don't think a huge organization (NASA) could jigger numbers a little when it comes to bringing home the bacon? I'd think after Enron you would be more of a skeptic. Here is a link to that blogger that corrected some NASA data. The point isn't just the errors, but the distinct possibility of fraud, and the tiny change may be larger than they want to admit. Of course they will downplay the shoddiness of their research. But surely we can trust a large organization like Enron the UN.

So if we don't want to limit the data to support a certain conclusion, it seems temperature and CO2 are at very low levels compared to the natural history of the world. A reversion to the mean would take us much higher ... naturally.

You didn't watch the video I put up ... they are now claiming the highest in a million years ... but there are other times with much higher CO2 before that, with lower temperatures. We have discussed this before. I don't think there is a lot of debate that man has caused some of the CO2 increase. In watching the video about the great global warming scandal, and then the debate with those that believe in AGW, the true believers even seemed to discuss the risk, and one put it at one in five, that AGW was the problem. But they believed we need to deal with the man made parts becase of the 20% risk. Some industry has gone along with AGW, but they are also influenced by public opinion, and have to at least appear to be acting responsibly. Sure climate change is a "threat". But how many agree man is the cause? RumRunner works in the field, and says it is not conclusive. The video I showed had several in the field that receive no checks, and talk of many that resigned from the UN study group in disagreement, but still had their names attached to the study. That video said something like $50 billion is spent on AGW proponents, as opposed to maybe some millions on tooth fairy AGW "deniers". To label those that don't accept the AGW hypothesis as fact as "deniers" is part of the mighty Al Gore type slander machine. I see you also love the term. Those that don't receive the checks from big oil tell of the intense pressure to go along with the AGW religion. It is a huge lefty cause, and a huge source of funding. You have to scare people to convince them to spend $50 billion on computer models of weather forecasts for the next 100 years. Also ... the significance of that little change that showed temps were higher in 1934, is that 1998 was trumpeted as the hottest year ever. That tiny difference from the thirties was "huge" when it "proved" AGW, but now that it shows hotter years were pre WW2, they say it is not significant. True believers lost their "hottest year ever" claim, so now it is no big deal. More politics than science. And your acceptance of CNN and Newspeak as science sources indicates you are too gullible.

Good point about ozone depletion, which seems more proven than AGW (anthropogenic global warming). I read a bit and can't see if it increases or decreases global warming, but it seems people in the arctic may need more sunscreen. Population does seem an issue ... there seems an element in the "green" movement that believes reducing population is part of the goal. Some seem to view protection of various species as a means to prevent development intended to provide for more people. Of course the greens have little impact on India or China, so perhpas it is more a political movement in the US. A recent (perhaps intentional) release of a cattle virus in England gives a hint of our vulnerability. Of course the US had it's own scare of one case of mad cow that lead to Japan closing its doors to our beef. That one cow never even entered the food chain. It sure seems to make sense that foreign companies should have to meet the same standards as US. I don't really care about the river dolphin too much ... it is better to have the dam (if that is a cause of their demise) providing electricty with little pollution. Still, that doesn't seem to keep greedy China from polluting to high heaven. The US ranks at the top in pollution control spending (as % of GDP I think), whereas China is not even on the list. If home prices don't keep skyrocketing (which seems to have stopped already) then that out of control consumption may soon stop. But if the big economic machine slows down, other types of pain may result. so many disasters looming ... :o Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. Fire and Ice, R. Frost, 1920

well, I thought you had said you were rooting for the cards over the pods a few posts back ... so I was referring to that ... yeah, Ankiel, great story ... but the birds did seem to get rejuvinated a little ... makes them better to watch ...

I thought sharks liked picking off waders in the shallow water ...

Cardinals rule and Dodgers drool .... OK, Cards are going to repeat .... They gots Ankiel, a pitcher, on pace to hit 38 home runs and 77 ribbies in the next 50 games, how can they lose? Spezio is going to deal with a problem some new guys looking pretty good ... do steroids special shakes work on pitchers? they made need help there ... glad "we" could help you with those pesky Padres Rocky ... Anyway ... seems there are signs of life with the Cardinals ... (I reserve the right to retract all this in a month :) )

I didn't say it was not a greenhouse gas, but that it was a very small portion; but I doubt its role is as significant as National Geographic claims. "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth." That is certainly NOT known. NASA recently admitted their error . (a Y2K graphing glitch?)... 1998 was not the warmest year, 1934 was. And 5 of the ten warmest were before WW2. That would seem to change the right side of your scary graph. That graph shows how CO2 increase lags temperature increase, another indication that it results from warming, not that it is the cause. Oceans give up CO2 as they warm, but it takes time for them to warm.Here is a good toutube to watch ... this is just one of eight segments. They are all good.

CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas? I think CO2 is such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, that its direct role as a greenhouse gas is not the issue. It is believed that there is some yet only hypothesized role it plays as maybe a catalyst that might increase warming. Which is why the chart (from that nifty source of yours) about percent of GDP spent on pollution control was more interesting to me. It ranked the US number three. China was nowhere to be found. It seems a little stretch to say we are responsible for China's pollution becasue we buy their products, but OK. It does seem there are many issues with China we will eventually have to confront. Lately it has been inferior quality control. But they also steel our technology and don't respect our patents. Their harm to the environment is just one problem. Maybe Krysilis will help on the CO2 thingy.

So now we have to buy bottled air too? I was just reading that soot emissions from China are detected in the NW US. Also the article suggested that soot was a likely cause of arctic warming, threatening our dear polar bears. Though alarmists attribute that warming trend to increased atmospheric CO2, this argument seems easily batted aside by the observation that there is little correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in the Arctic region. Could ongoing Arctic deposition of soot be a possibility? You might not think so because U.S., Canadian and Western European industries now operate under strict soot control regulations. But what about China? After all, it burns more coal than the U.S., EU and Japan combined – typically without the emissions controls of developed nations

I saw a few meteors last night ... but they will be best Sunday night. This is one site with a little info The next meteor shower is the Perseids on August 12. This year there’s no moonlight to interfere. The best time to watch is from 11 p.m. August 12 until dawn the next morning. The best direction to watch is wherever your sky is darkest. If you have a dark sky, you may see a meteor once a minute on average. The shower is also active for several days before and after its peak.

What happens in the third world? So another hedge fund in the poker game found no one was buying their bluff. But that doesn't effect us, except they are the same guys playing the housing market, and they are upside down on the 12 houses they are flipping. But the gov' will come to the rescue and introduce "liquidity", whatever that is .... I wish I really understood all those cool terms :) I can't see China trying to trash our market, as long as they are so dependent on it. Maybe we will just not accept their silly little certificates. If they are going to declare financial war, can't we just "cancel the debt"? How are they going to repossess? (that's what happens when you don't pay the exorcist ... you get repossessed :)) Anyway, time for beer 386 points ... yowser ...

heh ... you are probably correct... So 42 people were using one SS# ... yikes ... and we want more of that bureaucracy?Here is that video ...

Thanks, O Bumpy One ... :) Yeah, I listened to a bunch of those by Newt ... he should be the next president. How refreshing to hear someone so clear and informed on topics.

Newt is pretty good on getting the bridge replaced quickly, rather than turning this into "Hillary Care for bridges" (from redstate) ... ... some in Minnesota are calling not for unleashing American ingenuity but instead for more taxes to feed the same failing bureaucracies. Their answer is to further punish Minneapolis drivers by raising the gasoline tax. This knee-jerk reaction is precisely what happens when the right lacks an effective vocabulary of solutions to compete with left-wing tax-and-spend policies. Raising taxes to spend on bureaucracies -- which in all three cases were the main impediment to a safe, efficient and speedy rebuilding effort in the first place -- is exactly the wrong answer. He gives examples from CA earthquakes, one where the job was done in 2 months rather than the projected 2 years plus.

yeah, all 10 runs in one inning, nine before getting an out ... LOL guess I'll stay up for bonds it does seem MLB needed a boost, and they may have overlooked the steroid stuff ... thinking of when sosa, mcgwire, bonds were all blasting past maris and the babe ... not sure about "juiced" baseballs or overlooking mechanical devices

Bonds may need two asterisks ... I hadn't seen this before, but here is an article on the mechanical device Bonds wears. It seems to be much more than just protection. 1) The apparatus is hinged at the elbow. It is a literal "hitting machine" that allows Bonds to release his front arm on the same plane during every swing. It largely accounts for the seemingly magical consistency of every Bonds stroke. 2) The apparatus locks at the elbow when the lead arm is fully elongated because of a small flap at the top of the bottom section that fits into a groove in the bottom of the top section. The locked arm forms a rigid front arm fulcrum that allows extraordinary, maximally efficient explosion of the levers of Bonds' wrists. Bonds hands are quicker than those of average hitters because of his mechanical "assistant." 3) When Bonds swings, the weight of the apparatus helps to seal his inner upper arm to his torso at impact. Thus "connected," he automatically hits the ball with the weight of his entire body - not just his arms - as average hitters ("extending") tend to do. There are six others listed, besides that it is so much pading that he is not afraid to lean over the plate.

There is now a question of how the bridge was loaded with resurfacing materials. Levee work in New Orleans was found to be sub par ... not surprise considering how money is dished out down there ... and maybe that is how it works everywhere. It will be interesting to look at the connections the bridge repair company had to the politicians. Loading up a structure with known weakness seems irresponsible. Removing part of the deck would reduce stiffness ... then load it up ... was this the most responsible contractor? Or did some senator throw his cronies millions?

Interesting that my search for "guns" turned up several responses from this thread ... But here is a little horror flick that shows why guns might be useful ... to avoid those movie scenarios with the gal home alone ... "oh my, what shall I do?" :o

Given Louisiana's record, I'm surprised they were allowed to do that. It seems the money would have been restricted in some ways. Sad to see so much fed money thrown to those dogs. I think they should make some of those neighborhoods that are 8' below sea level into parks or something, but I know a lot of people are moving back in. I'd think they'd need that fed money for rebuilding much of that infrastructure. But maybe after the flooding the streets are MORE level.