http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Climate Change - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/644bf640f475d0c1?hl=en
* WARNING: INBOX.COM SPYWARE BAD EMAIL - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8e4bdc0a471532f1?hl=en
* Why America can have better bicycling than Europe - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/94722d9efbaa6d02?hl=en
* Smart move: Dutch abandon Afghanistan - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5c605beddd7b6be?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Climate Change
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/644bf640f475d0c1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 5 2010 5:47 pm
From: "David Hare-Scott"
Jeff Thies wrote:
> It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
> that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by added
> CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> The one Rush Limbaugh speaks of is Roy Spencer, and I hear his name
> from other Republicans.
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
>
> I find this interesting, as when you look at his current site, that
> it does nothing to refute that CO2 is causing global warming. What I
> see instead is an assumption that negative feedback might help
> counteract warming.
>
> What I gather from Dr Spencer is that with the passing of La Nina
> cooling and entering a cycle of PDO warming, it looks like the past
> decade will be just a cool memory.
>
> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have screwed
> ourselves?
>
> Jeff
I don't think there are very many deniers who are qualified, ie
climatologists. There are many who represent themselves as "experts" but
turn out to be like Singer who used to get paid by the tobacco industry to
deny smoking caused harm or like Monkton who is a journalist trained in
classics but seems a little mad and in love with the spotlight. So much of
the propaganda from such experts is not a scientific argument anyway but an
appeal to consequences "your taxes will skyrocket, they want a world
government which will take all your rights, etc". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
There was one bloke who used to work for the CSIRO who has some professional
training in the area (I cannot think of his name sorry) but I recall
following up on it and he was soundly refuted by the majority position.
Spencer himself gets quite a drubbing from some climatologists, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
That is not to say there is universal agreement, there are bound to be
differences of opinion on the details and especially the modelling but for
the main point that humans have caused real climate changes due to burning
fossil fuel and it will get worse if we don't stop the consensus among
scientists is real.
I know that science never proves anything to the 100% certainty level but it
is only those who are looking to freeze the political process into inaction
that claim that it should. The precautionary principle says that as the
consequences of inaction get more serious you should act to prevent problems
even if the matter is not certain. It's like insurance, you pay a little to
cover the possibility of disaster that costs much more. This principle is
written into much environmental protection legislation so why wouldn't we
use it now on a broader scale? The failure to resolve this is not from the
scientists who failed to provide reasonable evidence it is from the
politicians who have collectively failed to act on it.
Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to do it
soon anyway regardless of climate change. The cost of converting too soon
is trifling compared to the cost of going too late. So why dither?
David
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 5 2010 10:11 pm
From: Billy
In article <i3fm4n$cb8$1@news.albasani.net>,
"David Hare-Scott" <secret@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jeff Thies wrote:
> > It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
> > that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by added
> > CO2 in the atmosphere.
> >
> > The one Rush Limbaugh speaks of is Roy Spencer, and I hear his name
> > from other Republicans.
> >
> > http://www.drroyspencer.com/
> >
> > I find this interesting, as when you look at his current site, that
> > it does nothing to refute that CO2 is causing global warming. What I
> > see instead is an assumption that negative feedback might help
> > counteract warming.
> >
> > What I gather from Dr Spencer is that with the passing of La Nina
> > cooling and entering a cycle of PDO warming, it looks like the past
> > decade will be just a cool memory.
> >
> > So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have screwed
> > ourselves?
> >
> > Jeff
>
> I don't think there are very many deniers who are qualified, ie
> climatologists. There are many who represent themselves as "experts" but
> turn out to be like Singer who used to get paid by the tobacco industry to
> deny smoking caused harm or like Monkton who is a journalist trained in
> classics but seems a little mad and in love with the spotlight. So much of
> the propaganda from such experts is not a scientific argument anyway but an
> appeal to consequences "your taxes will skyrocket, they want a world
> government which will take all your rights, etc". See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
>
> There was one bloke who used to work for the CSIRO who has some professional
> training in the area (I cannot think of his name sorry) but I recall
> following up on it and he was soundly refuted by the majority position.
> Spencer himself gets quite a drubbing from some climatologists, see:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-t
> hree-easy-lessons/
>
> That is not to say there is universal agreement, there are bound to be
> differences of opinion on the details and especially the modelling but for
> the main point that humans have caused real climate changes due to burning
> fossil fuel and it will get worse if we don't stop the consensus among
> scientists is real.
>
> I know that science never proves anything to the 100% certainty level but it
> is only those who are looking to freeze the political process into inaction
> that claim that it should. The precautionary principle says that as the
> consequences of inaction get more serious you should act to prevent problems
> even if the matter is not certain. It's like insurance, you pay a little to
> cover the possibility of disaster that costs much more. This principle is
> written into much environmental protection legislation so why wouldn't we
> use it now on a broader scale? The failure to resolve this is not from the
> scientists who failed to provide reasonable evidence it is from the
> politicians who have collectively failed to act on it.
>
> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
> energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to do it
> soon anyway regardless of climate change. The cost of converting too soon
> is trifling compared to the cost of going too late. So why dither?
>
>
> David
And then there are those who see global catastrophe as an opportunity.
An opportunity to sell you white paint, or shoot sulfur particles into
the stratosphere to block the incoming light, or what ever cockamamie
idea that they have at the time.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: WARNING: INBOX.COM SPYWARE BAD EMAIL
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8e4bdc0a471532f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 5 2010 6:22 pm
From: sethb@panix.com (Seth)
In article <20100805203653.AD5351A7C48@www.ecn.org>,
Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>Before you signup for Inbox.com "free" email services know THIS:
>
>1) You will be subjected to a 5-10 second delay before access to you mail box, IF you even get access that is. This is for you to
>read advertisements and for their spyware to record your session
And why should anybody believe it takes 5-10 seconds for spyware to
record a session?
Seth
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 5 2010 6:40 pm
From: "Rev. Beergoggles"
Seth wrote:
>> Anonymous wrote:
>> Before you signup for Inbox.com "free" email services know THIS:
>>
>> 1) You will be subjected to a 5-10 second delay before access to you
>> mail box, IF you even get access that is. This is for you to read
>> advertisements and for their spyware to record your session
>
> And why should anybody believe it takes 5-10 seconds for spyware to
> record a session?
Because the internets say so.
Frankly I think it's because they are running it on an old Vic-20
powered by a senile gerbil.
(__).oO(I know a load when I sees one!)
(Oo)
/-------\/
/ | ||
* ||----||
^^ ^^
--
rbg
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why America can have better bicycling than Europe
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/94722d9efbaa6d02?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 5 2010 7:37 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 3, 10:23 pm, Serge Issakov <serge.issa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I too must agree with Ken and Bob. The only time I ever came close
> to a collision with a car in over 40 years of bicycling, was when I
> was in a bike lane passing congested motor traffic that was on my
> left. But that's before I learned the techniques and practices
> espoused on this list, including never passing on the right someone
> who can and might turn right. In my case that someone was a woman in
> a mini van who suddenly decided to pull out of the jam and turn right
> across the bike lane into a side street, right in front of 20 mph
> (downhill) me. Miraculously, somehow my instincts caused me to
> "instant turn" into the side street, before I ever heard of the term.
>
> Serge
When an SUV roars past you... you wonder what the hell you are doing
on that road with such beasts. They look intimidating, they sound
intimidating, and are often driven by alpha male/female drivers.
Then the sales pitch of the stationary recumbent sounds appealing:
'Despite the competition from trendy new fitness inventions, exercise
bikes continue to be popular options for home exercise. They offer the
same aerobic benefits of riding a bicycle at any time, in any weather,
without leaving the comfort and safety of home. Exercise bikes don't
take up much space, require little or no balance or coordination, and
can provide an effective workout for all levels of users, from
beginners to serious competitors. While the same could be said for a
number of other types of home fitness equipment, the exercise bike is
one of the few that allows you to watch television or read a magazine
while you work out.'
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Smart move: Dutch abandon Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5c605beddd7b6be?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 5 2010 11:28 pm
From: Derek C
On Aug 5, 3:26 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:42 pm, Derek C <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nobody in recent history has ever successfully invaded and controlled
> > Afghanistan, even the greatest Superpowers of their day (Russia,
> > British Empire, etc), so why should the Yanks and the modern day Brits
> > do any better? This was a fool's errand dreamed up by that fool George
> > W Bush and his pet poodle crony Tony Blair. If it was intended to
> > suppress terrorism, it has had entirely the opposite effect.
>
> It was meant to INTIMIDATE the world and burn the extra cash lying
> around.- Hide quoted text -
>
Is that why both the US and the UK now have huge National debts?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment