http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* OT: Climate Change - 18 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/644bf640f475d0c1?hl=en
* "How to Find Cheaper College Textbooks" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/071d64724dfb0d08?hl=en
* Hot pot/Electric kettle - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da96a3557c9d4c9a?hl=en
* Does TAKING THE LANE slow down traffic? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/53572018da3c57f0?hl=en
* Why people don't commute by bike? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5a940e0b0554395e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Climate Change
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/644bf640f475d0c1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 3:40 pm
From: "David Hare-Scott"
Cheryl Isaak wrote:
> On 8/7/10 1:19 PM, in article
> wildbilly-EBC6E3.10194907082010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au,
> "Billy" <wildbilly@withouta.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <8c4hjeFe31U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>>
>> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
>> room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
>
>
> Having actually worked for a different Nobel prize winner and way too
> many Ph.Ds, I think I can honestly say that to get to that rarified
> level requires a bit of "loon".
>
>
> C
AND their expertise does not necessarily transfer to other topics. The
author of the article wthat started all this is a quantum physicist not a
climatologist.
David
== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 3:49 pm
From: "David Hare-Scott"
The Real Bev wrote:
> On 08/07/10 22:48, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 08/07/10 11:04, Billy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the
>>>> UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the
>>>> remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>>>>
>>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and
>>>> that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by
>>>> the emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate
>>>> scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic
>>>> Research Unit."
>>>
>>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica
>>> Lewinsky.
>>
>> Unless you know more through some sort of magic than all the
>> authorities who investigated this issue this is just a taunt. We
>> already know there is a slice of the population who believe the
>> conspiracy theory you don't need to repeat that or declare you are a
>> member.
>
> I guess you missed -- or ignored -- the bit about "analyze the data
> yourself and come to your own conclusion."
>
No I didn't because it wasn't visible to me when I posted the above.
> We're not talking about believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or Jesus
> here.
In what way did you "analyze the data yourself and come to your own
conclusion." regarding the 'climategate scandal' ? As you have presumably
done so it should be easy for you to show the evidence that demonstrates the
conspiracy. Don't deamand that I do your work for you prove your case.
David
== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 3:56 pm
From: "David Hare-Scott"
root wrote:
> David Hare-Scott <secret@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> The conspiracy theorist either conveniently forget (or never
>> understood) that the scientific community around the world would be
>> last place to try to organise a conspiracy. First, there is no
>> central authority to enforce silence or conformity. Second, the way
>> to fame in the scientific world is to go against the prevailing
>> wisdom AND to win by providing the evidence. I am not saying there
>> are no errors or disagreements but a global conspiracy of
>> climatologists is just a joke. Let me say it another way: if
>> he/she has the evidence there is a huge reward for the scientist who
>> breaks ranks and they cannot be effectively censored.
>>
>
> Your paragraph assumes that the work of the IPCC is science: it is
> not. Science is open, science allows the work to be examined and
> reproduced if possible. Science welcomes criticism. The review of the
> climategate material misses the point that every effort was made to
> conceal the materials and methods behind their work.
>
> Before undertaking any measures to combat climate change all the
> data should be made freely available in a public repository. All
> computer models should be open source and freely available. All
> aspects of the data collection methods should be public information.
Much of it is:
Ice cores and climate records See http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
Sea ice records, back to 1750 See http://nsidc.org/
Today's numerical weather prediction model output? See
http://ftpprd.ncep.noaa.gov/
Today's analyzed sea surface temperature? See
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/
David
== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 7:45 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 8/7/2010 1:19 PM, Billy wrote:
> In article<8c4hjeFe31U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed"<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>
> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
> room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
You are either a quick study or you have run across Rod before. I had
felt some regret that I had brought Rod into a new unsuspecting group.
I'll watch my cross posting in the future.
Jeff
== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 7:57 pm
From: "David Hare-Scott"
Jeff Thies wrote:
> On 8/7/2010 1:19 PM, Billy wrote:
>> In article<8c4hjeFe31U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Rod Speed"<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
>>
>> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
>> room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
>
> You are either a quick study or you have run across Rod before. I had
> felt some regret that I had brought Rod into a new unsuspecting group.
>
> I'll watch my cross posting in the future.
>
> Jeff
Those who may not want to follow this whole thread will find a good
approximation here:
http://www.sensationbot.com/chat-rodspeed.html
David
== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 8:10 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <8c8dhpFu3pU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed wrote:
>Billy wrote
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Billy wrote
>>>> The Real Bev<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Billy wrote
>
>>>>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the
>>>>>> UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010,
>>>>>> with the remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>
>>>>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and
>>>>>> that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by
>>>>>> the emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific
>>>>>> malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
>
>>>>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman: Monica Lewinsky.
>
>>>> Actually, the judge said he could use the dictionary definition, which
>>>> was vaginal, so TECHNICALLY he didn't have sex with that woman.
>
>>>> But what does that have to do with "Global Warming", or do you just
>>>> like to talk about oral sex? Do you have something to say? Spit it out.
>
>>> That governments and governmental leaders will say what they need
>>> to say regardless of the truth, and that you can find "independent
>>> reviewers" to arrive at whatever conclusion you want -- or can afford.
>
>>> Where did they find an "independent review" panel composed of persons
>>> who (a) can evaluate the data; (b) can evaluate the language used;
>>> and (c) have no connection one way or the other with the global
>>> warming controversy?
>
>>> The globe gets warmer and cooler and has done so for quite a long
>>> time. I think it would be more sensible to try to figure out how to deal
>>> with change rather than engage in the rather fruitless undertaking of
>>> trying to stop it.
>
>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>
>> Well, Bev, we can all agree that CO2 levels are going up, right?
>
>Yes, but they were MUCH higher in the distant past.
Mostly such as times when Greenland and Antarctica lacked thick ice
sheets, and sea level was a couple hundred meters higher than it is now.
>> And we can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
>
>Doesnt mean that that is necessarily a bad thing.
<SNIP issues of ocean pH, how many billions of people this planet is
carrying or will carry successfully or otherwise, whatever else>
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 8:21 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article
<wildbilly-6915B0.12330708082010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, Billy
wrote in part:
>In article
><f96596d6-50fc-42af-ab4d-8089eb87d112@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Chris <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 1:23 pm, Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>> > In article <b2forewagner-162A99.13113708082...@news.supernews.com>,
>> > Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <wildbilly-74E3AC.09590308082...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>> > > Billy <wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>> > > > Anecdotally, I've been taking 1 g of vitamin C/day since the early 70s
>> > > > and 6 g/day if I have a cold (which is rare).
>> >
>> > > > I doubt there is any silver bullet for either colds, or cancer (The
>> > > > latter seems to be part of "metabolic syndrome". Staying away from
>> > > > polyunsaturated oils, would probably help.).
I heard that the bad ones are saturated ones and ones with all
"unsaturations" (double bonds) being of "trans" alignment.
That means the "bad ones" are coconut and palm oil, cocoa butter, fats
of warm blooded animals, and *partially hydrogenated* polyunsaturated
fats (partially hydrogenated typically-extratropical vegetable oils).
Unhydrogenated polyunsaturated fats have a high rate of sounding to me
to be "OK, or at least OK as far as fat intake goes".
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 8:26 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Don Klipstein wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Billy wrote
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Billy wrote
>>>>> The Real Bev<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Billy wrote
>>>>>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the
>>>>>>> UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010,
>>>>>>> with the remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>>>>>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and
>>>>>>> that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by
>>>>>>> the emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate
>>>>>>> scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic
>>>>>>> Research Unit."
>>>>>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman: Monica Lewinsky.
>>>>> Actually, the judge said he could use the dictionary definition, which
>>>>> was vaginal, so TECHNICALLY he didn't have sex with that woman.
>>>>> But what does that have to do with "Global Warming", or do you
>>>>> just like to talk about oral sex? Do you have something to say?
>>>>> Spit it out.
>>>> That governments and governmental leaders will say what they need
>>>> to say regardless of the truth, and that you can find "independent
>>>> reviewers" to arrive at whatever conclusion you want -- or can afford.
>>>> Where did they find an "independent review" panel composed of
>>>> persons who (a) can evaluate the data; (b) can evaluate the
>>>> language used;
>>>> and (c) have no connection one way or the other with the global
>>>> warming controversy?
>>>> The globe gets warmer and cooler and has done so for quite a long
>>>> time. I think it would be more sensible to try to figure out how
>>>> to deal with change rather than engage in the rather fruitless
>>>> undertaking of trying to stop it.
>>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>> Well, Bev, we can all agree that CO2 levels are going up, right?
>> Yes, but they were MUCH higher in the distant past.
> Mostly such as times when Greenland and Antarctica lacked thick ice
> sheets, and sea level was a couple hundred meters higher than it is now.
Yes, but the earth clearly managed fine with those much higher CO2 levels.
>>> And we can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
>> Doesnt mean that that is necessarily a bad thing.
> <SNIP issues of ocean pH, how many billions of people this planet
> is carrying or will carry successfully or otherwise, whatever else>
== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 9:13 pm
From: The Real Bev
On 08/08/10 06:57, despen@verizon.net wrote:
> The Real Bev<bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>
> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>
> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
> or that they have their own readings.
>
> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a stricking
> ignorance about the subject.
No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
analyzed the data and found it wanting.
And fix your spellchecker.
--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross
one more time and you're out of the parade!"
== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 9:35 pm
From: Billy
In article <i3nqrb$eer$1@news.albasani.net>,
"David Hare-Scott" <secret@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jeff Thies wrote:
> > On 8/7/2010 1:19 PM, Billy wrote:
> >> In article<8c4hjeFe31U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> "Rod Speed"<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
> >>
> >> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
> >> room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
> >
> > You are either a quick study or you have run across Rod before. I had
> > felt some regret that I had brought Rod into a new unsuspecting group.
> >
> > I'll watch my cross posting in the future.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Those who may not want to follow this whole thread will find a good
> approximation here:
>
> http://www.sensationbot.com/chat-rodspeed.html
>
> David
Thanks, but no.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html
== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 9:43 pm
From: Billy
In article <i3nbos$piv$1@news.albasani.net>,
"David Hare-Scott" <secret@nospam.com> wrote:
> Cheryl Isaak wrote:
> > On 8/7/10 1:19 PM, in article
> > wildbilly-EBC6E3.10194907082010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au,
> > "Billy" <wildbilly@withouta.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <8c4hjeFe31U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pauling had a PhD and an Nobel Prize and was always a complete loon.
> >>
> >> Pauling has TWO Nobel Prizes and was always the smartest guy in the
> >> room, but I will cede to your superior familiarity with loons.
> >
> >
> > Having actually worked for a different Nobel prize winner and way too
> > many Ph.Ds, I think I can honestly say that to get to that rarified
> > level requires a bit of "loon".
> >
> >
> > C
>
> AND their expertise does not necessarily transfer to other topics. The
> author of the article wthat started all this is a quantum physicist not a
> climatologist.
>
> David
In the period of 2004-2006 he, Robert Betts Laughlin, as David said, not
a meteorologist, served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South
Korea. Many institutions of higher learning now rely on privates grants
for significant amounts of their budgets. I was unable to find mention
of private funding for KAIST, but I have seen it run as high as 33% in
the US and Canada. Let's just say, that I have my doubts.
--
- 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
== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:00 pm
From: Billy
In article <slrni5ut2d.fnu.don@manx.misty.com>,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In article
> <wildbilly-6915B0.12330708082010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, Billy
> wrote in part:
>
> >In article
> ><f96596d6-50fc-42af-ab4d-8089eb87d112@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chris <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 8, 1:23 pm, Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <b2forewagner-162A99.13113708082...@news.supernews.com>,
> >> > Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > In article
> >> > > <wildbilly-74E3AC.09590308082...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> >> > > Billy <wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Anecdotally, I've been taking 1 g of vitamin C/day since the early
> >> > > > 70s
> >> > > > and 6 g/day if I have a cold (which is rare).
> >> >
> >> > > > I doubt there is any silver bullet for either colds, or cancer (The
> >> > > > latter seems to be part of "metabolic syndrome". Staying away from
> >> > > > polyunsaturated oils, would probably help.).
>
> I heard that the bad ones are saturated ones and ones with all
> "unsaturations" (double bonds) being of "trans" alignment.
>
> That means the "bad ones" are coconut and palm oil, cocoa butter, fats
> of warm blooded animals, and *partially hydrogenated* polyunsaturated
> fats (partially hydrogenated typically-extratropical vegetable oils).
>
> Unhydrogenated polyunsaturated fats have a high rate of sounding to me
> to be "OK, or at least OK as far as fat intake goes".
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Yes, this is the debate that Ansel Keys started with his claim that
saturated fat causes cholesterol, which causes "cadiovascular disease".
The problem appears when you understand that Ansel Keys cherry picked
his information, Dwight Eisenhower died of a heart attack even though he
was on a low fat diet, and that many healthy cultures survived on
saturated fats, and none on polyunsatuated fats.
The gist is that agriculture, eating grains (carbohydrates), is the
biggest change in the human diet in the last 2,000,000 years, and most
of the medical problems of western culture stem from insulin rushes
caused by the sugar, refined, and in the starches of grains.
The definitive book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and
the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" (Vintage) by Gary Taubes
<http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033
462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281329439&sr=1-1>
p. 15
The incidence and severity atherosclerosis are not directly affected by
the level of cholesterol in the blood serum per se.
p. 96
White flour's low protein, vitamins, and mineral content made it "less
liable than whole meal flour to infestations by beetles and the
depredations of rodents", as Sir Stanley Davidson and Reginald Passmore
observed in their textbook Human Nutrition and Dietetics (1963).
p.194
Anything that raises blood sugar - in particular, the consumption of
refined and easily digestible carbohydrates - will increase the
generation of oxidants and free radicals; it will increase the rate of
oxidative stress and glycation,and the formation and accumulation of
advanced glycation end products. This means that anything that raises
blood sugar, by the logic of the carbohydrate hypothesis, will lead to
more atherosclerosis and heart disease, more vascular disorders, and a
pace of accelerated degeneration, even in those of us who never become
diabetic.
-----
Much easier to read is
"The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability" by Lierre Keith
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_19?url=search-alias%3Dstripbook
s&field-keywords=the+vegetarian+myth+by+lierre+keith&sprefix=The+Vegetari
an+Myth&ih=16_1_1_0_0_0_0_0_0_2.144_306&fsc=18>
--
- 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
== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:09 pm
From: "FarmI"
"Slim" <ric.duncan@verizon.net> wrote in message
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There is no real scientific controversy about anthropogenic global
>>climate change. The "scientists" who deny it are pretty much all
>>shills for energy companies like Exxon-Mobil.
>
> Not so.......over 31000 scientists disagree.
>
> http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php
And you've been caught believing in rubbish. Use google and you'll find out
that the 'petition project' is considered to be crud.
== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:18 pm
From: "FarmI"
"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i3lhm1$bim$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 08/07/10 22:48, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 08/07/10 11:04, Billy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK,
>>>> two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the
>>>> remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>>>>
>>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that
>>>> it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the
>>>> emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific
>>>> malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
>>>
>>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.
>>
>> Unless you know more through some sort of magic than all the authorities
>> who
>> investigated this issue this is just a taunt. We already know there is a
>> slice of the population who believe the conspiracy theory you don't need
>> to
>> repeat that or declare you are a member.
>
> I guess you missed -- or ignored -- the bit about "analyze the data
> yourself and come to your own conclusion."
How did you reach that conclusion based on what David wrote?
> We're not talking about believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or Jesus
> here.
David was not talking about any of those things.
== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:24 pm
From: "FarmI"
"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i3nv9u$50n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 08/08/10 06:57, despen@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev<bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>
>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>
>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>> or that they have their own readings.
>>
>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a stricking
>> ignorance about the subject.
>
> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
LOL. You mean to tell us that you didn't take your own advice but believed
what someone else told you? Well done!
== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:35 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <8c9ar2Fo7tU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Billy wrote
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Billy wrote
>>>>>> The Real Bev<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Billy wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the
>>>>>>>> UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010,
>>>>>>>> with the remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.
>
>>>>>>>> The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and
>>>>>>>> that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by
>>>>>>>> the emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate
>>>>>>>> scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic
>>>>>>>> Research Unit."
>
>>>>>>> And Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman: Monica Lewinsky.
>
>>>>>> Actually, the judge said he could use the dictionary definition, which
>>>>>> was vaginal, so TECHNICALLY he didn't have sex with that woman.
>
>>>>>> But what does that have to do with "Global Warming", or do you
>>>>>> just like to talk about oral sex? Do you have something to say?
>>>>>> Spit it out.
>
>>>>> That governments and governmental leaders will say what they need
>>>>> to say regardless of the truth, and that you can find "independent
>>>>> reviewers" to arrive at whatever conclusion you want -- or can afford.
>
>>>>> Where did they find an "independent review" panel composed of
>>>>> persons who (a) can evaluate the data; (b) can evaluate the
>>>>> language used;
>>>>> and (c) have no connection one way or the other with the global
>>>>> warming controversy?
>
>>>>> The globe gets warmer and cooler and has done so for quite a long
>>>>> time. I think it would be more sensible to try to figure out how
>>>>> to deal with change rather than engage in the rather fruitless
>>>>> undertaking of trying to stop it.
>
>>>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>
>>>> Well, Bev, we can all agree that CO2 levels are going up, right?
>
>>> Yes, but they were MUCH higher in the distant past.
>
>> Mostly such as times when Greenland and Antarctica lacked thick ice
>> sheets, and sea level was a couple hundred meters higher than it is now.
>
>Yes, but the earth clearly managed fine with those much higher CO2 levels.
Yes, this planet has managed to cope with events that fell short of
outright blowing it up.
As for a recently-dominating species that implemented industrialization
that is mostly in the past couple centuries of a 4-plus billion year old
planet known to harbor life forms including intelligent ones, I see a
different problem: Avoid changing sea level by so much as 1 meter from
what industrial coastal cities are accustomed to.
>>>> And we can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
>
>>> Doesnt mean that that is necessarily a bad thing.
>
>> <SNIP issues of ocean pH, how many billions of people this planet
>> is carrying or will carry successfully or otherwise, whatever else>
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:58 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <wildbilly-1AA5DD.22005708082010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Billy wrote:
>In article <slrni5ut2d.fnu.don@manx.misty.com>,
> don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <wildbilly-6915B0.12330708082010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, Billy
>> wrote in part:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><f96596d6-50fc-42af-ab4d-8089eb87d112@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Chris <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Aug 8, 1:23 pm, Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>> >> > In article <b2forewagner-162A99.13113708082...@news.supernews.com>,
>> >> > Bill who putters <b2forewag...@snip.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > In article
>> >> > > <wildbilly-74E3AC.09590308082...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>> >> > > Billy <wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > Anecdotally, I've been taking 1 g of vitamin C/day since the early
>> >> > > > 70s
>> >> > > > and 6 g/day if I have a cold (which is rare).
>> >> >
>> >> > > > I doubt there is any silver bullet for either colds, or cancer (The
>> >> > > > latter seems to be part of "metabolic syndrome". Staying away from
>> >> > > > polyunsaturated oils, would probably help.).
>>
>> I heard that the bad ones are saturated ones and ones with all
>> "unsaturations" (double bonds) being of "trans" alignment.
>>
>> That means the "bad ones" are coconut and palm oil, cocoa butter, fats
>> of warm blooded animals, and *partially hydrogenated* polyunsaturated
>> fats (partially hydrogenated typically-extratropical vegetable oils).
>>
>> Unhydrogenated polyunsaturated fats have a high rate of sounding to me
>> to be "OK, or at least OK as far as fat intake goes".
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
>Yes, this is the debate that Ansel Keys started with his claim that
>saturated fat causes cholesterol, which causes "cadiovascular disease".
>The problem appears when you understand that Ansel Keys cherry picked
>his information, Dwight Eisenhower died of a heart attack even though he
>was on a low fat diet, and that many healthy cultures survived on
>saturated fats, and none on polyunsatuated fats.
>The gist is that agriculture, eating grains (carbohydrates), is the
>biggest change in the human diet in the last 2,000,000 years,
Are you on the "Low Carb" bandwagon? Favored not only by those selling
low-carb foods, but also favored by farmers of grains? An attitude of
"carbs (or grains) is what food eats" favors increased grain sales through
inefficient 4-footed or feathered middlemen!
> and most of the medical problems of western culture stem from insulin
>rushes caused by the sugar, refined, and in the starches of grains.
I closely know a veterinary student who tells me that Type II diabetes
results primarily from being overweight due to excessive calorie intake,
and occurs plenty-enough with even an outright carb-free diet.
Meanwhile, what does this have to do with polyunsaturated vs. other
types of dietary fats?
>The definitive book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and
>the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" (Vintage) by Gary Taubes
><http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033
>462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281329439&sr=1-1>
>
>p. 15
>The incidence and severity atherosclerosis are not directly affected by
>the level of cholesterol in the blood serum per se.
>
>p. 96
>White flour's low protein, vitamins, and mineral content made it "less
>liable than whole meal flour to infestations by beetles and the
>depredations of rodents", as Sir Stanley Davidson and Reginald Passmore
>observed in their textbook Human Nutrition and Dietetics (1963).
>
>p.194
>Anything that raises blood sugar - in particular, the consumption of
>refined and easily digestible carbohydrates -
For that matter in general, especially for timeframe more than a couple
to a few hours, anything that has calories -
> - will increase the
>generation of oxidants and free radicals; it will increase the rate of
>oxidative stress and glycation,and the formation and accumulation of
>advanced glycation end products. This means that anything that raises
>blood sugar, by the logic of the carbohydrate hypothesis, will lead to
>more atherosclerosis and heart disease, more vascular disorders, and a
>pace of accelerated degeneration, even in those of us who never become
>diabetic.
While that neglects or attempts to ignore role of fats in formation of
arterial plaque.
And, what does that have to do with polyunsaturated being or not being a
"bad" kind of fat?
<I snip from here mostly a link to where to buy a book by someone who
wants to sell books, and somewhat poorly formatted for citation due to a
bit that comes up as gibberish in old-farters' newsreaders>
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:58 pm
From: The Real Bev
On 08/08/10 22:24, FarmI wrote:
> "The Real Bev"<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i3nv9u$50n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 08/08/10 06:57, despen@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>>> The Real Bev<bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Analyze the data yourself. Form your own conclusion.
>>>
>>> "Analying the data" consists of taking many readings and comparing
>>> the data to the output of very sophisticated computer models.
>>>
>>> I've yet to see ONE critic even claim that they've developed a
>>> computer model, found a problem with the existing computer models,
>>> or that they have their own readings.
>>>
>>> Your taunt about forming your own conclusions reveals a stricking
>>> ignorance about the subject.
>>
>> No, it reveals that I am intimately acquainted with someone who HAS
>> analyzed the data and found it wanting.
>
> LOL. You mean to tell us that you didn't take your own advice but believed
> what someone else told you? Well done!
I know his credentials. I know how his "peers" regard him. I know that
he's been analyzing data -- professionally -- for 50 years. I know he
doesn't lie. I know he has no axe to grind. And I know he's smarter
than you are.
--
Cheers, Bev
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for
anything, but they still bring a smile to your face
when you push them down a flight of stairs.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "How to Find Cheaper College Textbooks"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/071d64724dfb0d08?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 4:46 pm
From: aesthete8
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/how-to-find-cheaper-college-textbooks/?src=me&ref=homepage
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hot pot/Electric kettle
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da96a3557c9d4c9a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 4:47 pm
From: aesthete8
On 7月13日, 午後4:21, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am hoping to find one that makes really hot water.
>
> The hotter the better.
>
> Any recommendations?
Would boiling water in a wok make it hotter?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does TAKING THE LANE slow down traffic?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/53572018da3c57f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 5:43 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 8, 12:37 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement ofTantra-Hammock wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Anyway I want to go into the science behind it and try to prove that
> > TAKING THE LANE doesn't slow traffic from the current system in which
> > the drivers must move somewhat into the next lane not to hit you.
>
> You've answered your own question.
> If the speed limit is 35 and you are doing 15 then you do in fact slow
> traffic.
>
> If there is more than one lane and if you can move into the other lane
> safely then the other lane might not be impeded but teh lane the bike is in
> will always slow traffic.
>
> Living near a college town I see people granting mercy and space all the
> time.
> Many of the people who ride think they are immune from injury, always
> visible and not subject to the laws of traffic or physics.
> In California when riding a bycycle you are considered a vehicle and must
> obey all traffic laws, a rare sight indeed.
>
> My last close one came when I was making a right turn through a yield sign.
> I glanced back to my right before proceeding and saw a bike, on the
> sidewalk, coming at high speed. He crossed the intersection in front of me
> going the wrong way. Had I not stopped he probably would have run into me.
The same thing just happened to me while driving. The cyclist gave me
a scare, but he must have seen me. WHY DON'T THEY BAN CYCLING ON
SIDEWALKS?
What kind of respect do PEDESTRIANS get that don't deserve protection
from cyclists?
Just like in the Animal Kingdom we have a FOOD CHAIN at work.
But nobody has demonstrated to me that drivers are slowed down by
cyclists taking the lane. The drivers must avoid the cyclist and move
away from him, the more the better. WHY AREN'T DRIVERS HONEST AND TELL
US THEY WANT US OUT OF THEIR WAY, AND PASS THE PROBLEM TO THE
POWERLESS PEDESTRIANS?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 11:42 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <8cfa013c-a348-4fe8-892d-9d845b99156c@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
His Highness TibetanMonkey wrote: (I edit here for space)
>On Aug 8, 12:37 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> His Highness TibetanMonkey wrote:
>The same thing just happened to me while driving. The cyclist gave me
>a scare, but he must have seen me. WHY DON'T THEY BAN CYCLING ON
>SIDEWALKS?
>
>What kind of respect do PEDESTRIANS get that don't deserve protection
>from cyclists?
How about laws that prohibit cycling on sidewalks?
Such as 1 PA law that says that bikes are restricted to bike lanes where
bike lanes are available?
And a 2nd PA law that prohibits cycling on sidewalks in "business
districts"?
How about at least 1 Philadelphia against persons older than 12 years
of age cycling on sidewalks?
I like how I occaisionally see *police officers* cycling in non-
emergency manner on sidewalks where it is illegal to do so.
So, I sometimes ride on sidewalks. And when I do so, I yield to
pedestrians.
Every bike that I ride has a horn and a siren, thanks to my willingness
to use a loud falsetto voice. However, when I am cycling on a sidewalk, I
like to merely request pedestrians to get out of my way. I think that I
have a high rate of doing that well!
And failing that, I do "My Usual" - making my bike a road vehicle
recognized by PA's "vehicle code"!
However, "making nice" goes a long way! And when on a road where
vehicle code enforcement is lacking, "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you"!
That may explain why truckers in Mexico respect those traveling along
Mexican roads by riding a mule (or a donkey?).
>Just like in the Animal Kingdom we have a FOOD CHAIN at work.
>
>But nobody has demonstrated to me that drivers are slowed down by
>cyclists taking the lane. The drivers must avoid the cyclist and move
>away from him, the more the better. WHY AREN'T DRIVERS HONEST AND TELL
>US THEY WANT US OUT OF THEIR WAY,
I have had some motor vehicle drivers spew such "honest vitriol" against
cyclists...
>AND PASS THE PROBLEM TO THE POWERLESS PEDESTRIANS?
In Philadelphia, pedestrians are close to opposite of powerless. It
appears to me that Philadelphia's "legal culture" favors a jaywalker
having an obvious red light over road users that have a green light.
For that matter, many Philadelphians flout PA law by dropping litter
when a sidewalk-deployed trash can is deployed 6-10 meters ahead of
such "Philadelphian litterbugs".
I sometimes cycle on sidewalks in Philadelphia, though I usually cycle
in the street where "vehicles" belong. When I cycle on sidewalks, I ride
slowly enough to be able to yield to 100% of pedestrians. And I don't
"bully my way through".
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why people don't commute by bike?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5a940e0b0554395e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 9:07 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <3140c0b1-e525-469f-8254-8185b931ab91@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
His Highness TibetanMonkey wrote:
>On Aug 5, 7:59 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> > I do not care about training cyclists looking for fun, performance or
>> > whatever on a bike. They don't care about others either. That's a
>> > hobby. The revolution is for the SUB (Sport Utility Bike)
>>
>> OK. But the commuting share isn't at whatever it is because 1 minus
>> that number fraction of the public wouldn't DARE ride their bike on the
>> road. There is a million and one things that add up to commute share.
>
>Go around, and the reasons you will most likely find are:
>
>1- It's too dangerous: FEAR (it may be a perception, but it's strong
>enough to send most cyclists onto the sidewalks, thus rendering
>cycling ineffective except for immigrant workers who can't afford a
>car)
I mostly cycle in the street. My bike commuting is 95-plus % in the
street.
>2- TOO FAR: You may combine it with public transportation or get
>another job or move.
I have lived and worked for about 3 years where I commuted mostly by
bike for 8 miles each way.
Since then, I moved and reduced my bike commute to about 4 miles each
way.
>3- I WILL SWEAT: True, but then showers at work may be provided. Or
>maybe you sweat at work anyway.
My current day job is delivering by bike. So was my previous day job.
Both of which I commuted to mainly by bike.
Includes summertime in Philadelphia, including that city's 2 hottest
Julys and 2 hottest Junes and their hottest May, as well as their hottest
4 summers and one of 2 Philly summers tied for 5th place hottest, since
1873.
>Another reason which you will seldom find, but which is very real is:
>"What will happen if I get hurt in a bicycle accident --even if I
>fall-- and the medical system sucks and my family depends on me?"
I have crashed my fair share of times, and I am thankful that I get
exercise and drink lots of milk. Good-and-strong bones help. So does
experience with gymnastics and wrestling in junior highschool gym classes,
and having a boyfriend who often likes to "play rough" in bed.
I lost only 1 workday in the past 25.5 years due to a bike crash, and
that was not a commuting crash. This is my "disabling crash rate" even
with the past winter being Philadelphia's snowiest in over 135 years, and
the infamous ice storms that struck Philly in early 1994.
(The worst one of which produced a lot of rain while the temperature was
-3 to -3.5 C. My coat got crunchy with a crunchy ice coating. Icicles
started forming at the rim of my helmet.)
>A deeper reason is the average sheep is not prepared to challenge the
>herd, which in turn receives the messages from the Media: "You need an
>SUV to be important, etc."
And in response, I proudly ride a bike! Even occaisionally shouting,
"Mahaha-hiya Give it to me one ti-ime now"! More often, I use my voice
to have every bike that I ride being one that has a horn and a siren with
every adjustability in pitch, timbre, tone and volume imaginable!
Roughly 1/4 million plus miles by bike already, and Philadelphia's lousy
drivers and occaisionally-severe weather have yet to kill me, or even get
a bone fracture into my medical record!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 9:21 pm
From: Shawn Hirn
In article
<3140c0b1-e525-469f-8254-8185b931ab91@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of
Tantra-Hammock" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 7:59 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do not care about training cyclists looking for fun, performance or
> > > whatever on a bike. They don't care about others either. That's a
> > > hobby. The revolution is for the SUB (Sport Utility Bike)
> >
> > OK. But the commuting share isn't at whatever it is because 1 minus that
> > number fraction of the public wouldn't DARE ride their bike on the road.
> > There is a million and one things that add up to commute share.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Go around, and the reasons you will most likely find are:
>
> 1- It's too dangerous: FEAR (it may be a perception, but it's strong
> enough to send most cyclists onto the sidewalks, thus rendering
> cycling ineffective except for immigrant workers who can't afford a
> car)
Two summers ago, I was assaulted in broad daylight while riding my bike
across the Ben Franklin bridge that spans the Delaware River between
Philadelphia and Camden. This is the only bridge sits between my
apartment and my job unless I go way out of my way to ride my bike
across a small bridge about 10 miles north of where I live. In addition,
on the side of the Ben Franklin closest to where I live, there is no
safe access from the route I have to take to its pedestrian pathway. The
only way for me to get to the pedestrian area is to take a much longer
route through a neighborhood that is one of the most dangerous in the
United States or to ride on a major highway during rush hour, which is
probably illegal and definitely unsafe. These are the two big deterrents
for why I never ride my bike to work any more. I heard recently that one
of some of President Obama's stimulus money will be used to extend a
bike and jogging path that runs right by my apartment in NJ into
Philadelphia without having to travel through dangerous areas to ride a
bike or walk/run across the bridge. If that project comes to fruition
and I am still living in this area, I will definitely ride my bike to
work on days when the weather is nice.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2010 10:25 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <a10d4bdc-1b21-4803-8050-c6e58c345f31@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
His Highness TibetanMonkey wrote in part:
>I'm for both at this point: TAKE THE LANE for the adventurous, and
>BIKE PATHS for the peace of mind. Dedicated bike lanes don't take you
>where you need to go and are not connected.
My experience in Philadelphia is presence of bike lanes to such a high
extent as networking throughout much of some neighborhoods and to some
extent arguably citywide.
On roads where there is no bike lane, my experience is that "The Usual
Rule" is "Share the Road"!
Bikes and cars negotiate with each other how they move on the roadway!
Bikes TAKE THE LANE and slow down "motor traffic" when necessary to move!
Bikes "squeeze rightward" (in USA) when that allows bikes and "motor
traffic" to share the road!
And when the road only has minimal width for motor vehicles alone, then
cyclists alternate between "TAKING THE LANE" and stopping offside from the
road to let "motor traffic" pass.
I see a "Greater Rule":
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Since I now own a car and have driven cars about 55 or 60 thousand miles
and since I first owned a car I cycled a goodly 120,000 miles, I strongly
believe in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Share
The Road".
My experience is that close to 98% of even Philadelphia's infamous
drivers are at least somewhat reasonable. Road users tend to need to
"be reasonable" with each other in order to make much usage of roads!
And, when I see a motor vehicle driver yield right-of-way to
me in ways not required overtly by law or not require by "local vehicle
law enforcement culture", I wave one of my hands to "say thanks", which
car drivers (occaisionally myself) often do!
As for the other 2% (probably closer to 1% or less, especially if
excluding the common driver error of failing to signal in advance of a
lane change that may have a rate closer to 20% in Philadelphia):
"Bitch out" when a cyclist is in best position to force a motorist to
choose between "sharing the road" and "willfully committing a murder".
And, when "share the road" is an option, I do that rather than "take
the lane". I go for "peaceful coexistence" whenever that can be done.
Suppose I was driving a bulldozer or a large farm tractor? (Thankfully,
those travel "on-road" only around 30 meters to a km or two.)
How about how the Amish in Lancaster County and nearby in Pennsylvania
drive horse-drawn carriages on roads with only 1 lane each way? The
Amish "play fair" with motor vehicles and cyclists; even the cyclists that
"more disapproving Amish" "would cast a dirty look unto" when the cyclists
are proudly-city-rat cyclists that are wearing clothes that show more than
hide the underneath bodies of such cyclists!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
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
