Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10/27/2016 3:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:07:46 +0100, Phil Lee
wrote:

Strange how that happens with established facts like the (nearly)
spherical earth!

That gets re-measured all the time. The way science works is that
*everything* gets questioned -- when a topic is placed off limits for
investigation, that isn't science.

The latest buzz in biology is that certain acquired characteristics
*can* be inherited. Should we refrain from investigating this because
Lamarck went down a blind alley?

Please don't pretend that global temperatures, atmospheric CO2, artic
ice mass, glacial recession etc. don't get re-measured all the time!

I don't think anyone is saying that skeptics shouldn't re-measure any of
the relevant data, any more than anyone is saying (for example) that
Relativity skeptics should not measure the speed of light, or Evolution
skeptics should not study DNA.

However, if someone is still saying that light is transmitted by
stationary, undetectable ether; that the earth was created 6,000 years
ago; and that today's measured changes in climate are due to completely
natural causes, then they need to bring some overwhelming and
incontrovertible data to the discussion.

Or, more likely, stop pretending that they are serious scientists.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/27/2016 5:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2016 3:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:07:46 +0100, Phil Lee

wrote:

Strange how that happens with established facts like the
(nearly)
spherical earth!

That gets re-measured all the time. The way science works
is that
*everything* gets questioned -- when a topic is placed off
limits for
investigation, that isn't science.

The latest buzz in biology is that certain acquired
characteristics
*can* be inherited. Should we refrain from investigating
this because
Lamarck went down a blind alley?

Please don't pretend that global temperatures, atmospheric
CO2, artic ice mass, glacial recession etc. don't get
re-measured all the time!

I don't think anyone is saying that skeptics shouldn't
re-measure any of the relevant data, any more than anyone is
saying (for example) that Relativity skeptics should not
measure the speed of light, or Evolution skeptics should not
study DNA.

However, if someone is still saying that light is
transmitted by stationary, undetectable ether; that the
earth was created 6,000 years ago; and that today's measured
changes in climate are due to completely natural causes,
then they need to bring some overwhelming and
incontrovertible data to the discussion.

Or, more likely, stop pretending that they are serious
scientists.




The major proponents of this religious hysteria don't
pretend it has anything to do with actual science. It's
about compulsion and power. The scientific staff[1] just
play along with the ruse:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...us-quotes.html

[1] these are hardly scientists, dispassionate observers,
are they?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:34:42 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:22:47 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)

There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

I've got a friend that has some unpronounceable disease, or maybe
condition, that results in his having too many red blood cells. The
treatment consists of taking some sort of "medicine" that kills red
blood cells :-(

I had always thought that the rest between blood donation was to give
the body time to make another pint of blood.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 10-27-2016 10:34, Joy Beeson wrote:
There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

When I went to donate, they took a finger sample, and dropped a little
into some clear fluid. Said they were checking for iron. Didn't say
whether they were looking for too little or for too much.

--
Wes Groleau

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:40:35 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

... if someone is still saying that today's measured changes in climate

Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming to match output of CO2. You should get a copy of the entire Climategate email series and read it; it is a horrifying story of scientists faking up an event that didn't happen -- that's why they have to perpetrate the "trick":

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mann counted the same, most unsuitable trees, 161 times in order to give him his hockey stick, and for the last fifty years, because temperatures didn't rise, added the real measured temps to the forecast temps for an artificial boost.

There's something else wrong with scenario. You, Frank Krygowski, throw your weight around on RBT, trying to pretend that you can analyze statistics. In that case, why don't you know that it is unprofessional for any statistician to add a forecast and a measured series together even innocently, never mind with deceitful purpose as here?

Also, you clearly haven't understood that these socalled scientists point the finger at CO2 -- which is plant food! -- because otherwise their models don't work. In other words, they have no positive evidence that CO2 is the enabler, merely the negative evidence that their models, which anyway can't even forecast five years ahead, cannot explain anomalies, nor even rearcast known history (which must be the acme of incompetence in statistics!), don't work without the multiplier of CO2. If you had read, and understood, the full reports of the IPCC -- I have -- you suddenly discover that they have very low confidence in their own models.

You must get your information on global warming -- and your faith in it too, Franki-boy -- from television.

Andre Jute
Don't lecture us, moron. We know better.

(1) From my Cambridge days, I have the usual connections at the University of East Anglia and one of them is the drinking buddy of a tech for the climate "scientists" at the Hadley CRUT, where these crimes were committed. For years this poor guy tore out his hair at the mess in which the "scientists's" self-serving, crooked adjustments left the master historical record, and it is widely suspected by insiders that it is the tech who, exasperated, finally blew the whistle on these fraudsters.

On 10/27/2016 6:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2016 5:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2016 3:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:07:46 +0100, Phil Lee

wrote:

Strange how that happens with established facts like the
(nearly)
spherical earth!

That gets re-measured all the time. The way science works
is that
*everything* gets questioned -- when a topic is placed off
limits for
investigation, that isn't science.

The latest buzz in biology is that certain acquired
characteristics
*can* be inherited. Should we refrain from investigating
this because
Lamarck went down a blind alley?

Please don't pretend that global temperatures, atmospheric
CO2, artic ice mass, glacial recession etc. don't get
re-measured all the time!

I don't think anyone is saying that skeptics shouldn't
re-measure any of the relevant data, any more than anyone is
saying (for example) that Relativity skeptics should not
measure the speed of light, or Evolution skeptics should not
study DNA.

However, if someone is still saying that light is
transmitted by stationary, undetectable ether; that the
earth was created 6,000 years ago; and that today's measured
changes in climate are due to completely natural causes,
then they need to bring some overwhelming and
incontrovertible data to the discussion.

Or, more likely, stop pretending that they are serious
scientists.

The major proponents of this religious hysteria don't pretend it has
anything to do with actual science. It's about compulsion and power. The
scientific staff[1] just play along with the ruse:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...us-quotes.html


[1] these are hardly scientists, dispassionate observers, are they?

If you dig into the history, you'll find lots of impolite quotes and
accusations between scientists of renown. Try some of the remarks by and
about Isaac Newton, for example. The image of a scientist as a monkish,
disinterested lab rat who's perfectly impartial and diplomatic is a
naive cartoon.

But out of the bickering, the personality clashes, the contrary
theories, truth does tend to emerge. The winning theories are the ones
that correctly predict the facts that are found to occur - as with
Einstein's prediction that the path of a star's light would be affected
by gravity.

So, how about facts on the ground? Are you pretending this isn't happening?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle26945443/

Nations are investing heavily to take advantage of the rapid reduction
in polar ice. Are they wasting money by imagining things?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...50522717106330

Are companies that are doing the same making imaginary profits?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...hwest-passage/

Is this conspiracy so pervasive that the vast majority of scientists
working in relevant fields, in countries all around the world, speaking
countless different languages, have all signed on to it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/wo...ming.html?_r=0

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8299e...tering-monsoon

If it's about money: It's been pretty conclusively shown that scientists
disputing climate change have taken in rather large sums from those
selling fossil fuels. NASA and NOAA don't pay salaries nearly as high
as, say, Exxon can afford. Why don't many more jump on that band wagon
and stop producing data like this?
http://www.climatecentral.org/galler...years-globally

Yes, it's possible all the above (and much more) is wrong. It's also
possible that we'll find proof that stones actually fall to the earth
only because they are "of the earth," as was once believed (before
Newton began using the term "gravity"). It's possible that all those
dinosaur bones were planted 6,000 years ago, just to test our faith,
when God created the universe. And I suppose it's still possible that
we'll find Saddam's huge (huge!) cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

--
- Frank Krygowski

W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 10-27-2016 10:34, Joy Beeson wrote:
There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

When I went to donate, they took a finger sample, and dropped a little
into some clear fluid. Said they were checking for iron. Didn't say
whether they were looking for too little or for too much.


Too little. Canadian Blood Services used to use that method, where a drop
of blood is dropped into a vial of Copper Sulfate dissolved in water. If
the drop sinks, your hemoglobin levels are high enough, and if it floats,
your iron levels are too low to donate.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:54:39 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 10-27-2016 10:34, Joy Beeson wrote:
There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

When I went to donate, they took a finger sample, and dropped a little
into some clear fluid. Said they were checking for iron. Didn't say
whether they were looking for too little or for too much.

AIDS positive?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:


Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming...

That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
bother reading much Jute****.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:19:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:


Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming...

That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
bother reading much Jute****.

I stopped reading the famous author years ago and strangely I have no
feelings of loss.
--
cheers,

John B.