f



Linux-friendly network document scanner

I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
friendly.

Specifically, I want a scanner that 

1) Has a built in webserver
2) Has a built in shared drive support
3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?

thanks
0
Ignoramus7893
9/7/2015 3:08:44 PM
comp.os.linux.misc 33599 articles. 1 followers. amosa69 (78) is leader. Post Follow

258 Replies
577 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 48

On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> friendly.
>
> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>
> 1) Has a built in webserver
> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>
> thanks
>

Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan 
something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work 
in this situation?  Can you explain.




0
Linux
9/7/2015 4:56:22 PM
On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>> friendly.
>>
>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>
>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>
> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>
>
>
>

If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers 
that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being 
networked.
Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/7/2015 5:25:13 PM
On 07/09/15 18:25, Caver1 wrote:
> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>> friendly.
>>>
>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>
>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>
>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> networked.
> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>

so it is for the convenience of saving the scanned documents (pdf or 
whatever) on the network, right?  Makes sense then.

I guess the HP scanners can email the documents as well to the user's 
corporate email account.  But you still need to go to the scanner first 
unless your secretary can do it for you and email the doc to you.


0
Linux
9/7/2015 5:30:53 PM
On 09/07/2015 01:30 PM, Linux User wrote:
> On 07/09/15 18:25, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>> friendly.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>
>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>> networked.
>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>
>
> so it is for the convenience of saving the scanned documents (pdf or
> whatever) on the network, right?  Makes sense then.
>
> I guess the HP scanners can email the documents as well to the user's
> corporate email account.  But you still need to go to the scanner first
> unless your secretary can do it for you and email the doc to you.
>
>

Scan in the documents on one networked computer and save it on the network.
It's just that with a wifi all-in-one it doesn't have to be networked 
for all computers
on network to use it they just have to be wifi capable.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/7/2015 6:10:56 PM
At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:56:22 +0100 Linux User <linux.user@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> > I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> > friendly.
> >
> > Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >
> > 1) Has a built in webserver
> > 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> > 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> > 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> > 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> 
> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan 
> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work 
> in this situation?  Can you explain.

Many modern 'Office Class' All-In-Ones have Network capability.

I think what the OP wants is something like an 'Office Class' All-In-One, but
with OCR (?) capability (not sure if by document scanner he means scan-to-text
or just scan-to-image). Most of the 'Office Class' All-In-Ones do have a
built-in webserver. Some provide something like NetBIOS / MS-Windows drive
sharing capability ("shared drive support").

Almost any higher-end 'Office Class' All-In-One will have a built-in webserver
and scan-to-image capability (using the built-in webserver). I don't know if a
basic xsane driver module counts as "management software install" in the OP's
mind, but that might be needed for some 'Office Class' All-In-Ones.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                                              
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                 
0
Robert
9/7/2015 6:47:07 PM
At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> > On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> >> friendly.
> >>
> >> Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >>
> >> 1) Has a built in webserver
> >> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> >> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> >> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> >> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>
> >
> > Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> > something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
> > in this situation?  Can you explain.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers 
> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being 
> networked.

'... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'

Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS 
networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).

> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.

The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).

> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                        
0
Robert
9/7/2015 6:47:08 PM
On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 13:47:07 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:

> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:56:22 +0100 Linux User
> <linux.user@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>> > I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>> > friendly.
>> >
>> > Specifically, I want a scanner that
>> >
>> > 1) Has a built in webserver 2) Has a built in shared drive support 3)
>> > Does NOT require any "management software install"
>> > 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending 5) Did I mention no
>> > "required software installation"?
>> >
>> > thanks
>> >
>> >
>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to
>> work in this situation?  Can you explain.
> 
> Many modern 'Office Class' All-In-Ones have Network capability.
> 
> I think what the OP wants is something like an 'Office Class'
> All-In-One, but with OCR (?) capability (not sure if by document scanner
> he means scan-to-text or just scan-to-image). Most of the 'Office Class'
> All-In-Ones do have a built-in webserver. Some provide something like
> NetBIOS / MS-Windows drive sharing capability ("shared drive support").
> 
> Almost any higher-end 'Office Class' All-In-One will have a built-in
> webserver and scan-to-image capability (using the built-in webserver). I
> don't know if a basic xsane driver module counts as "management software
> install" in the OP's mind, but that might be needed for some 'Office
> Class' All-In-Ones.
> 
> 
Since you have to go to the scanner to put the originals in anyway, I 
just got an Epson all-in-one that lets me tell the scanner to scan to the 
cloud.  Google Drive in my case.  Works simply and easily and doesn't 
care what OS is on the computer because I don't even have the scanner 
software on the computer.




-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/7/2015 7:02:52 PM
On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>> friendly.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>
>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>> networked.
>
> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>
> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>
>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>
> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>
>>
>

I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not 
needed by a wifi printer.
With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the 
LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/7/2015 7:28:59 PM
At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> >>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> >>>> friendly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
> >>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> >>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> >>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> >>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> >>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
> >>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
> >> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >> networked.
> >
> > '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
> >
> > Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
> > networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
> >
> >> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
> >
> > The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
> >
> >>
> >
> 
> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not 
> needed by a wifi printer.
> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the 
> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.

Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi *LAN*. You
are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
flying in a plane.

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                       
0
Robert
9/7/2015 9:09:37 PM
Linux User wrote on 07. September 2015:
>
> On 07/09/15 18:25, Caver1 wrote:
>>
>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>> networked.
>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>
>
> so it is for the convenience of saving the scanned documents (pdf or
> whatever) on the network, right?  Makes sense then.
>
> I guess the HP scanners can email the documents as well to the user's
> corporate email account.  But you still need to go to the scanner
> first unless your secretary can do it for you and email the doc to
> you.

The mentioned printers are available as devices in your network. You can
share them to other users.

You can also have a mail server installed and "print" out documents as
PDF and email them to other users. Or keep them as file for other users.

So you don't need a "network scanner". Linux can do all its
functions. You just need a scanner. And I would say any cheap "3 in 1"
printer (the also have fax and a scanner) is cheaper than any stand alone
scanner.

HP is known to have a god Linux support, and there is a package within
Linux already containing about everything you need (hplip). You might
want to have a look at <http://hplipopensource.com/> what printer works
for you. Or check the web for manufacturers of other printers.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.
0
Andreas
9/7/2015 9:29:53 PM
Linux User wrote on 07. September 2015:
>
> On 07/09/15 18:25, Caver1 wrote:
>>
>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>> networked.
>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>
>
> so it is for the convenience of saving the scanned documents (pdf or
> whatever) on the network, right?  Makes sense then.
>
> I guess the HP scanners can email the documents as well to the user's
> corporate email account.  But you still need to go to the scanner
> first unless your secretary can do it for you and email the doc to
> you.

The mentioned printers are available as devices in your network. You can
share them to other users.

You can also have a mail server installed and "print" out documents as
PDF and email them to other users. Or keep them as file for other users.

So you don't need a "network scanner". Linux can do all its
functions. You just need a scanner. And I would say any cheap "3 in 1"
printer (the also have fax and a scanner) is cheaper than any stand alone
scanner.

HP is known to have a good Linux support, and there is a package within
Linux already containing about everything you need (hplip). You might
want to have a look at <http://hplipopensource.com/> what printer works
for you. Or check the web for manufacturers of other printers.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.
0
Andreas
9/7/2015 10:10:54 PM
On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>> networked.
>>>
>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>
>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>
>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>
>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>> needed by a wifi printer.
>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>
> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi *LAN*. You
> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
> flying in a plane.
>

  Local Area network
A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers 
within a limited area
-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/7/2015 11:31:04 PM
On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
>>>>>> to work
>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
>>>>> computers
>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>> networked.
>>>>
>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>> networked.'
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
>>>> WiFi IS
>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
>>>> network).
>>>>
>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>
>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>
>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
>> *LAN*. You
>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
>> flying in a plane.
>>
>
>   Local Area network
> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
> within a limited area

Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting 
it to anything else.

And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN, 
the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/8/2015 1:22:49 AM
At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:31:04 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> >>>>>> friendly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
> >>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> >>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> >>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> >>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> >>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
> >>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
> >>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>> networked.
> >>>
> >>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
> >>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
> >>>
> >>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
> >>>
> >>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
> >> needed by a wifi printer.
> >> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
> >> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
> >
> > Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
> > means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi *LAN*. You
> > are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
> > flying in a plane.
> >
> 
>   Local Area network
> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers 
> within a limited area

And the interconnection can be wired (eg Cat5 or Cat6 cables) or wireless (eg 
802.11b/g/n).  There is some notion that a wifi connection is not a network 
connection.  It is, just as if there was a Cat5 or Cat6 cable connection.

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                                   
0
Robert
9/8/2015 4:06:08 AM
At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
> > On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> >>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> >>>>>>> friendly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
> >>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> >>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> >>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> >>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thanks
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> >>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
> >>>>>> to work
> >>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
> >>>>> computers
> >>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>>> networked.
> >>>>
> >>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>> networked.'
> >>>>
> >>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
> >>>> WiFi IS
> >>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
> >>>> network).
> >>>>
> >>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
> >>>>
> >>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
> >>> needed by a wifi printer.
> >>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
> >>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
> >>
> >> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
> >> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
> >> *LAN*. You
> >> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
> >> flying in a plane.
> >>
> >
> >   Local Area network
> > A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
> > within a limited area
> 
> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting 
> it to anything else.
> 
> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN, 
> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.

Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most 
domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless router 
also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.

> 
> 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                         
0
Robert
9/8/2015 4:06:08 AM
On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
>>>>>>> computers
>>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>> networked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>> networked.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
>>>>>> WiFi IS
>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
>>>>>> network).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
>>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
>>>> *LAN*. You
>>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
>>>> flying in a plane.
>>>>
>>>
>>>    Local Area network
>>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
>>> within a limited area
>>
>> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting
>> it to anything else.
>>
>> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN,
>> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.
>
> Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most
> domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless router
> also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.
>

That's right two separate networks. You can have the printer on WAN and 
not on LAN.


-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/8/2015 3:35:37 PM
On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:31:04 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>> networked.
>>>>>
>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>
>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>
>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi *LAN*. You
>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
>>> flying in a plane.
>>>
>>
>>    Local Area network
>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
>> within a limited area
>
> And the interconnection can be wired (eg Cat5 or Cat6 cables) or wireless (eg
> 802.11b/g/n).  There is some notion that a wifi connection is not a network
> connection.  It is, just as if there was a Cat5 or Cat6 cable connection.
>

Never said that WAN wasn't a network.  They can be interconnected but 
not necessarily.
You can connect to both at the same time or have different set up where 
you can't.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/8/2015 3:45:21 PM
On 09/08/2015 11:45 AM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:31:04 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
>>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
>>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>> networked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
>>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi *LAN*. You
>>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
>>>> flying in a plane.
>>>>
>>>
>>>     Local Area network
>>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
>>> within a limited area
>>
>> And the interconnection can be wired (eg Cat5 or Cat6 cables) or wireless (eg
>> 802.11b/g/n).  There is some notion that a wifi connection is not a network
>> connection.  It is, just as if there was a Cat5 or Cat6 cable connection.
>>
>
> Never said that WAN wasn't a network.  They can be interconnected but
> not necessarily.
> You can connect to both at the same time or have different set up where
> you can't.
>

As was pointed out I was thinking again and put WAN when I meant WLAN.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/8/2015 4:10:46 PM
At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:45:21 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:31:04 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> >>>>>>>> friendly.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
> >>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> >>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> >>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> >>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> thanks
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> >>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work
> >>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your computers
> >>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>>>> networked.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
> >>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
> >>>> needed by a wifi printer.
> >>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
> >>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
> >>>
> >>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
> >>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi *LAN*. You
> >>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
> >>> flying in a plane.
> >>>
> >>
> >>    Local Area network
> >> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
> >> within a limited area
> >
> > And the interconnection can be wired (eg Cat5 or Cat6 cables) or wireless (eg
> > 802.11b/g/n).  There is some notion that a wifi connection is not a network
> > connection.  It is, just as if there was a Cat5 or Cat6 cable connection.
> >
> 
> Never said that WAN wasn't a network.  They can be interconnected but 
> not necessarily.
> You can connect to both at the same time or have different set up where 
> you can't.

Actually, it is perfectly possible to connect both via 802.11b/g/n (WiFi) AND 
via Cat5 or Cat6.  *I* do that all the time with my laptop and have in fact 
configured my DHCP server to give the same IP address to both MAC addresses.  
This allows for a seamless transistion when I unplug the Cat5 cable from my 
laptop.

eth0 is the hard ethernet NIC (Cat5 cable) and wlan0 is the wireless NIC:

gollum.deepsoft.com% netstat -r
Kernel IP routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS Window  irtt Iface
192.168.250.0   *               255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0 eth0
192.168.250.0   *               255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0 wlan0
192.168.122.0   *               255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0 virbr0
default         sauron.deepsoft 0.0.0.0         UG        0 0          0 eth0
gollum.deepsoft.com% ifconfig | egrep '(eth0)|(wlan0)' -A 2
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:21:86:A0:DD:62  
          inet addr:192.168.250.5  Bcast:192.168.250.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::221:86ff:fea0:dd62/64 Scope:Link
--
wlan0     Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:21:6B:92:82:AC  
          inet addr:192.168.250.5  Bcast:192.168.250.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::221:6bff:fe92:82ac/64 Scope:Link

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                            
0
Robert
9/8/2015 4:30:56 PM
At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:35:37 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
> >>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> >>>>>>>>> friendly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
> >>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> >>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> >>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> >>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> thanks
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> >>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
> >>>>>>>> to work
> >>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
> >>>>>>> computers
> >>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>>>>> networked.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>>>> networked.'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
> >>>>>> WiFi IS
> >>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
> >>>>>> network).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
> >>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
> >>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
> >>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
> >>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
> >>>> *LAN*. You
> >>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
> >>>> flying in a plane.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>    Local Area network
> >>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
> >>> within a limited area
> >>
> >> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting
> >> it to anything else.
> >>
> >> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN,
> >> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.
> >
> > Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most
> > domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless router
> > also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.
> >
> 
> That's right two separate networks. You can have the printer on WAN and 
> not on LAN.

Actually, typical consumer-grade wireless 'routers' have the wireless network
and the wired network as the *same* LAN. So, if the printer is wired OR
wireless, it is on the LAN either way (although potientially with two
different IP addresses if it is connected both ways) -- there is no difference
between WiFi and hard wired devices (computers, printers, whatever) --
everything on the WiFi is on the *same* LAN as everything hard wired.
Connection to the WAN (== Wide Area Network, eg the Internet) depends on the
router's configuration (eg port forwarding), and that is a completely separate
issue.

> 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                                                    
0
Robert
9/8/2015 4:30:56 PM
On 09/08/2015 12:30 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:35:37 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>>>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>>>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
>>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
>>>>>>>>> computers
>>>>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>>>> networked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>>> networked.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
>>>>>>>> WiFi IS
>>>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
>>>>>>>> network).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
>>>>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
>>>>>> *LAN*. You
>>>>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
>>>>>> flying in a plane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Local Area network
>>>>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
>>>>> within a limited area
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting
>>>> it to anything else.
>>>>
>>>> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN,
>>>> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.
>>>
>>> Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most
>>> domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless router
>>> also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.
>>>
>>
>> That's right two separate networks. You can have the printer on WAN and
>> not on LAN.
>
> Actually, typical consumer-grade wireless 'routers' have the wireless network
> and the wired network as the *same* LAN. So, if the printer is wired OR
> wireless, it is on the LAN either way (although potientially with two
> different IP addresses if it is connected both ways) -- there is no difference
> between WiFi and hard wired devices (computers, printers, whatever) --
> everything on the WiFi is on the *same* LAN as everything hard wired.
> Connection to the WAN (== Wide Area Network, eg the Internet) depends on the
> router's configuration (eg port forwarding), and that is a completely separate
> issue.
>
>>
>>
>

I understand what you are saying and you are correct. My comment should 
have been LAN/WLAN.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/8/2015 4:54:38 PM
At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:54:38 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/08/2015 12:30 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:35:37 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> >>>>>>>>>>> friendly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
> >>>>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
> >>>>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
> >>>>>>>>>> to work
> >>>>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
> >>>>>>>>> computers
> >>>>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>>>>>>> networked.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
> >>>>>>>> networked.'
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
> >>>>>>>> WiFi IS
> >>>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
> >>>>>>>> network).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
> >>>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
> >>>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
> >>>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
> >>>>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
> >>>>>> *LAN*. You
> >>>>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
> >>>>>> flying in a plane.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Local Area network
> >>>>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
> >>>>> within a limited area
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting
> >>>> it to anything else.
> >>>>
> >>>> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN,
> >>>> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.
> >>>
> >>> Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most
> >>> domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless router
> >>> also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's right two separate networks. You can have the printer on WAN and
> >> not on LAN.
> >
> > Actually, typical consumer-grade wireless 'routers' have the wireless network
> > and the wired network as the *same* LAN. So, if the printer is wired OR
> > wireless, it is on the LAN either way (although potientially with two
> > different IP addresses if it is connected both ways) -- there is no difference
> > between WiFi and hard wired devices (computers, printers, whatever) --
> > everything on the WiFi is on the *same* LAN as everything hard wired.
> > Connection to the WAN (== Wide Area Network, eg the Internet) depends on the
> > router's configuration (eg port forwarding), and that is a completely separate
> > issue.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> I understand what you are saying and you are correct. My comment should 
> have been LAN/WLAN.

Right.  And except in situations with special security concerns the LAN and 
WLAN are generally configured to be one and the same.

> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                            
0
Robert
9/8/2015 5:11:57 PM
On 09/08/2015 01:11 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:54:38 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/08/2015 12:30 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:35:37 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
>>>>>>>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan
>>>>>>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
>>>>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
>>>>>>>>>>> computers
>>>>>>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>>>>>> networked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>>>>> networked.'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
>>>>>>>>>> WiFi IS
>>>>>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
>>>>>>>>>> network).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>>>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>>>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what LAN
>>>>>>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
>>>>>>>> *LAN*. You
>>>>>>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the ceiling or
>>>>>>>> flying in a plane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Local Area network
>>>>>>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
>>>>>>> within a limited area
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting
>>>>>> it to anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN,
>>>>>> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most
>>>>> domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless router
>>>>> also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's right two separate networks. You can have the printer on WAN and
>>>> not on LAN.
>>>
>>> Actually, typical consumer-grade wireless 'routers' have the wireless network
>>> and the wired network as the *same* LAN. So, if the printer is wired OR
>>> wireless, it is on the LAN either way (although potientially with two
>>> different IP addresses if it is connected both ways) -- there is no difference
>>> between WiFi and hard wired devices (computers, printers, whatever) --
>>> everything on the WiFi is on the *same* LAN as everything hard wired.
>>> Connection to the WAN (== Wide Area Network, eg the Internet) depends on the
>>> router's configuration (eg port forwarding), and that is a completely separate
>>> issue.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I understand what you are saying and you are correct. My comment should
>> have been LAN/WLAN.
>
> Right.  And except in situations with special security concerns the LAN and
> WLAN are generally configured to be one and the same.
>
>>
>

Not always.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/8/2015 6:08:08 PM
On 08/09/15 16:35, Caver1 wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is
>>>>>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to
>>>>>>>>> scan
>>>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
>>>>>>>> computers
>>>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>>> networked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>> networked.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
>>>>>>> WiFi IS
>>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
>>>>>>> network).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what
>>>>> LAN
>>>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
>>>>> *LAN*. You
>>>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the
>>>>> ceiling or
>>>>> flying in a plane.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Local Area network
>>>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
>>>> within a limited area
>>>
>>> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting
>>> it to anything else.
>>>
>>> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN,
>>> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.
>>
>> Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most
>> domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless
>> router
>> also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.
>>
>
> That's right two separate networks. You can have the printer on WAN and
> not on LAN.
>
>
A WAN is *not* a wireless network. Its a wide area network, spanning at 
least different buoldi8ngs. The Internet is a WAN.

Wifi is part of a LAN, typically. Its just not using Ethernet.


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/8/2015 9:29:55 PM
On 08/09/15 19:08, Caver1 wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 01:11 PM, Robert Heller wrote:

>> Right.  And except in situations with special security concerns the
>> LAN and
>> WLAN are generally configured to be one and the same.
>>
>>>
>>
>
> Not always.
>
That what he said: *generally* configured.



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/8/2015 9:31:37 PM
On 09/08/2015 05:29 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/09/15 16:35, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 09/08/2015 12:06 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Tue, 8 Sep 2015 02:22:49 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/09/15 00:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>> On 09/07/2015 05:09 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:28:59 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is
>>>>>>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, I want a scanner that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Has a built in webserver
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Has a built in shared drive support
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Does NOT require any "management software install"
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Preferably supports regular SMTP sending
>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Did I mention no "required software installation"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to
>>>>>>>>>> scan
>>>>>>>>>> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going
>>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>>> in this situation?  Can you explain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you have one of HP's wireless all-in-ones then any of your
>>>>>>>>> computers
>>>>>>>>> that are wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>>>> networked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being
>>>>>>>> networked.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the
>>>>>>>> WiFi IS
>>>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a
>>>>>>>> network).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you mean LAN == *Hard Connected Ethernet* (which is NOT what
>>>>>> LAN
>>>>>> means), all wifi devices would be on a network, specificly the wifi
>>>>>> *LAN*. You
>>>>>> are still on Planet Earth, even if you are suspended from the
>>>>>> ceiling or
>>>>>> flying in a plane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Local Area network
>>>>> A local area network a computer network that interconnects computers
>>>>> within a limited area
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Generally defined as not having a bridge or router connecting
>>>> it to anything else.
>>>>
>>>> And before you say that a domestic router is used to construct a LAN,
>>>> the routing bit of it is not. That's used to connect to the internet.
>>>
>>> Right.  The *router* routes between the LAN and tha WAN (Internet).  Most
>>> domestic router include a switch (usually with 4 ports) and a Wireless
>>> router
>>> also includes a wirless access point, connected to the switch.
>>>
>>
>> That's right two separate networks. You can have the printer on WAN and
>> not on LAN.
>>
>>
> A WAN is *not* a wireless network. Its a wide area network, spanning at
> least different buoldi8ngs. The Internet is a WAN.
>
> Wifi is part of a LAN, typically. Its just not using Ethernet.
>
>

Like I stated in three earlier posts, That should be WLAN not WAN.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/8/2015 11:00:37 PM
In comp.os.linux.misc, Linux User  <linux.user@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> > I would like to buy a network document (paper) scanner that is Linux
> > friendly.
....
> Network scanner?  Never heard of it.  I always thought that to scan 
> something, you need to go to the scanner so how is network going to work 
> in this situation?  Can you explain.

I've used multiple network scanners at my place of employment that have
been completely Linux friendly. I don't know if they met the full set of
requirements Ignoramus7893 had.

Here's how my current "network scanner" works. I walk over the the
scanner, which looks remarkably like a fullsize photocopier and is made
by an outfit called Canon. I select "scan" from the control panel, and
enter an email address as a destination[*]. I select color vs black and
white, resolution, PDF vs JPEG, etc. Then I put a stack of originals in
the sheet feeder and push the green button. When I get back to my desk I
have the scan waiting in my inbox. The "PDF" files are just JPEGs
embeded in PDF markup, with no attempt at OCR. 

I haven't yet tested to see what happens if/when I can exceed the maximum 
message size on the mail server.

[*] Fun Suprise! It's not confgured to prevent you from typo-ing your
    email address and sending sensitive documents to the outside world!

Elijah
------
it also works as a copier or network printer
0
Eli
9/9/2015 12:49:02 AM
On 2015-09-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:

[deletia]

>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>
>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>
>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>
>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>
>>>
>>
>
> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not 
> needed by a wifi printer.
> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the 
> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.

    Wifi is just another form of ethernet connected to your network. So
it doesn't really change things in terms of the scanner being able to
connect to anything wired or non-wired.

    If my mobile devices had CUPS installed, they would be able to print
to anyone's network's printers just fine. 

    Wifi really doesn't mean that much here.

    Mobile devices have their own print protocols but that's something different.
0
JEDIDIAH
9/10/2015 3:24:32 PM
On 09/10/2015 11:24 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2015-09-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>
>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>
>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>
>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>> needed by a wifi printer.
>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>
>      Wifi is just another form of ethernet connected to your network. So
> it doesn't really change things in terms of the scanner being able to
> connect to anything wired or non-wired.
>
>      If my mobile devices had CUPS installed, they would be able to print
> to anyone's network's printers just fine.
>
>      Wifi really doesn't mean that much here.
>
>      Mobile devices have their own print protocols but that's something different.
>

Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without 
having to connect to the LAN.


-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/10/2015 3:54:15 PM
On 2015-09-10, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 11:24 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2015-09-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>>
>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>
>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>
>>      Wifi is just another form of ethernet connected to your network. So
>> it doesn't really change things in terms of the scanner being able to
>> connect to anything wired or non-wired.
>>
>>      If my mobile devices had CUPS installed, they would be able to print
>> to anyone's network's printers just fine.
>>
>>      Wifi really doesn't mean that much here.
>>
>>      Mobile devices have their own print protocols but that's something different.
>>
>
> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without 
> having to connect to the LAN.

    Mobile printing and wifi networking are two separate things.
0
JEDIDIAH
9/10/2015 9:32:24 PM
At Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:04:09 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:

> 
> On 09/10/2015 11:42 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 10/09/15 22:32, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> On 2015-09-10, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>> On 09/10/2015 11:24 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-09-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [deletia]
> >>>>
> >>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
> >>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
> >>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
> >>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
> >>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
> >>>>
> >>>>        Wifi is just another form of ethernet connected to your network. So
> >>>> it doesn't really change things in terms of the scanner being able to
> >>>> connect to anything wired or non-wired.
> >>>>
> >>>>        If my mobile devices had CUPS installed, they would be able to print
> >>>> to anyone's network's printers just fine.
> >>>>
> >>>>        Wifi really doesn't mean that much here.
> >>>>
> >>>>        Mobile devices have their own print protocols but that's something different.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
> >>> having to connect to the LAN.
> >>
> >>       Mobile printing and wifi networking are two separate things.
> >>
> >
> > I ma just sitting hwre chewing my popcorn watching two unbelievably
> > ignorant people parade their utter ignorance to the world in the belief
> > they are actually contributing understanding..
> >
> > Keep it up chaps!
> >
> >
> >
> 
> My terminology may be wrong but my understanding isn't.
> Tell me if why if you have a Wifi printer that all computers can connect 
> to but not even see each other over Wifi but they can communicate over 
> ethernet because of setting up of the LAN, how is the Wifi network the 
> same as the ethernet network?

If by 'Wifi' you mean 802.11b/g/n, then unless the 802.11b/g/n access point
is set up to be on a different network (or some kind of "Ad Hoc" network), the
hard ethernet (eg Cat5/Cat6) and the Wifi *ARE* on the same network. The 
typical, standard setup for a consumer grade router/access point puts both its 
(typically 4) RJ45 'LAN' jacks on the same network as its 802.11b/g/n 'port'. 
It is possible impose various security restrictions, including firewalls 
and/or network segration, but these fearures are not common on consumer grade 
WiFi routers/access points.  Higher end WiFi routers can do this and in some 
commercial environments, all-in-one WiFi routers are not usually going to be 
used, instead bare access point(s) will be wired to managed switches and 
routers configured with various security measures implemented (eg isolated 
networks, firewalls, etc.).

Additionally, the computers might have various firewall settings in place that 
impose restrictions on what traffic can go over Wifi vs what traffic can go 
over ethernet.  I suspect that in your case certain ports are blocks on the 
Wifi network that are not blocked on the ethernet.  Also, unless the dhcp 
server (in the router or elsewhere) is set up properly, the machines that are 
Wifi capable AND are connected with Cat5/6 are getting *different* IP 
addresses for their Wifi and Cat5/6 connections.  Depending on how things like 
DNS are set up, it might be possible that the Wifi IP addresses are not being 
'mapped' or some such.

It depends on how things are setup (at a number of different levels), but 
802.11b/g/n *IS* just another form of networking and above the 'physical' 
layers (the raw WiFi itself), it is *exactly* the same as 10/100/1000BaseT 
(Ethernet) networking.  


OTOH, if what you are talking about is really Bluetooth OR Celluar Wireless, 
then things are completely different.


> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                            
0
Robert
9/11/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 09/10/2015 11:40 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/09/15 16:54, Caver1 wrote:
>> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
>> having to connect to the LAN.
>
> Wifi *IS* 'the LAN'!!
>
>

Wifi doesn't necessarily  link the computers together when it allows 
them to use the wifi printer.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/11/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 10/09/15 16:24, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> Wifi is just another form of ethernet

?????



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 3:39:24 AM
On 10/09/15 16:54, Caver1 wrote:
> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
> having to connect to the LAN.

Wifi *IS* 'the LAN'!!


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 3:40:22 AM
On 10/09/15 22:32, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2015-09-10, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 11:24 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>
>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>
>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>
>>>       Wifi is just another form of ethernet connected to your network. So
>>> it doesn't really change things in terms of the scanner being able to
>>> connect to anything wired or non-wired.
>>>
>>>       If my mobile devices had CUPS installed, they would be able to print
>>> to anyone's network's printers just fine.
>>>
>>>       Wifi really doesn't mean that much here.
>>>
>>>       Mobile devices have their own print protocols but that's something different.
>>>
>>
>> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
>> having to connect to the LAN.
>
>      Mobile printing and wifi networking are two separate things.
>

I ma just sitting hwre chewing my popcorn watching two unbelievably 
ignorant people parade their utter ignorance to the world in the belief 
they are actually contributing understanding..

Keep it up chaps!



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 3:42:08 AM
On 09/10/2015 11:42 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/09/15 22:32, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2015-09-10, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2015 11:24 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>
>>>>        Wifi is just another form of ethernet connected to your network. So
>>>> it doesn't really change things in terms of the scanner being able to
>>>> connect to anything wired or non-wired.
>>>>
>>>>        If my mobile devices had CUPS installed, they would be able to print
>>>> to anyone's network's printers just fine.
>>>>
>>>>        Wifi really doesn't mean that much here.
>>>>
>>>>        Mobile devices have their own print protocols but that's something different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
>>> having to connect to the LAN.
>>
>>       Mobile printing and wifi networking are two separate things.
>>
>
> I ma just sitting hwre chewing my popcorn watching two unbelievably
> ignorant people parade their utter ignorance to the world in the belief
> they are actually contributing understanding..
>
> Keep it up chaps!
>
>
>

My terminology may be wrong but my understanding isn't.
Tell me if why if you have a Wifi printer that all computers can connect 
to but not even see each other over Wifi but they can communicate over 
ethernet because of setting up of the LAN, how is the Wifi network the 
same as the ethernet network?

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/11/2015 1:04:09 PM
On 09/11/2015 09:52 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:04:09 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/10/2015 11:42 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 10/09/15 22:32, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-10, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/10/2015 11:24 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-09-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 02:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>>> At Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:25:13 -0400 Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2015 12:56 PM, Linux User wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 07/09/15 16:08, Ignoramus7893 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> '... wifi capable can use the scanner-printer without it being networked.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't that contradictive?  WiFi == networking, so anything on the WiFi IS
>>>>>>>> networked.  Unless you mean an AdHoc network (which is still a network).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know if any of them have a built in webserver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The higher end ones do (OfficePro <mumble>).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was thinking, again got me in trouble, of a LAN network which is not
>>>>>>> needed by a wifi printer.
>>>>>>> With a wifi printer even computers/phones/tablets not connected to the
>>>>>>> LAN network can use the printer along with anything on the LAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Wifi is just another form of ethernet connected to your network. So
>>>>>> it doesn't really change things in terms of the scanner being able to
>>>>>> connect to anything wired or non-wired.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         If my mobile devices had CUPS installed, they would be able to print
>>>>>> to anyone's network's printers just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Wifi really doesn't mean that much here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Mobile devices have their own print protocols but that's something different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
>>>>> having to connect to the LAN.
>>>>
>>>>        Mobile printing and wifi networking are two separate things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I ma just sitting hwre chewing my popcorn watching two unbelievably
>>> ignorant people parade their utter ignorance to the world in the belief
>>> they are actually contributing understanding..
>>>
>>> Keep it up chaps!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My terminology may be wrong but my understanding isn't.
>> Tell me if why if you have a Wifi printer that all computers can connect
>> to but not even see each other over Wifi but they can communicate over
>> ethernet because of setting up of the LAN, how is the Wifi network the
>> same as the ethernet network?
>
> If by 'Wifi' you mean 802.11b/g/n, then unless the 802.11b/g/n access point
> is set up to be on a different network (or some kind of "Ad Hoc" network), the
> hard ethernet (eg Cat5/Cat6) and the Wifi *ARE* on the same network. The
> typical, standard setup for a consumer grade router/access point puts both its
> (typically 4) RJ45 'LAN' jacks on the same network as its 802.11b/g/n 'port'.
> It is possible impose various security restrictions, including firewalls
> and/or network segration, but these fearures are not common on consumer grade
> WiFi routers/access points.  Higher end WiFi routers can do this and in some
> commercial environments, all-in-one WiFi routers are not usually going to be
> used, instead bare access point(s) will be wired to managed switches and
> routers configured with various security measures implemented (eg isolated
> networks, firewalls, etc.).
>
> Additionally, the computers might have various firewall settings in place that
> impose restrictions on what traffic can go over Wifi vs what traffic can go
> over ethernet.  I suspect that in your case certain ports are blocks on the
> Wifi network that are not blocked on the ethernet.  Also, unless the dhcp
> server (in the router or elsewhere) is set up properly, the machines that are
> Wifi capable AND are connected with Cat5/6 are getting *different* IP
> addresses for their Wifi and Cat5/6 connections.  Depending on how things like
> DNS are set up, it might be possible that the Wifi IP addresses are not being
> 'mapped' or some such.
>
> It depends on how things are setup (at a number of different levels), but
> 802.11b/g/n *IS* just another form of networking and above the 'physical'
> layers (the raw WiFi itself), it is *exactly* the same as 10/100/1000BaseT
> (Ethernet) networking.
>
>
> OTOH, if what you are talking about is really Bluetooth OR Celluar Wireless,
> then things are completely different.
>
>
>>
>

All  I ever said was that they /could/  be seperate.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/11/2015 2:02:00 PM
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:52 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave
us:

>On 09/10/2015 11:40 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 10/09/15 16:54, Caver1 wrote:
>>> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
>>> having to connect to the LAN.
>>
>> Wifi *IS* 'the LAN'!!
>>
>>
>
>Wifi doesn't necessarily  link the computers together when it allows 
>them to use the wifi printer.

  So more correctly...

  A wifi device is ON the LAN.

  A wifi router is an additional network segment of the LAN.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/11/2015 2:02:34 PM
On 09/11/2015 10:02 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:52 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave
> us:
>
>> On 09/10/2015 11:40 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 10/09/15 16:54, Caver1 wrote:
>>>> Without CUPS mobile devices can print to a Wifi printer and without
>>>> having to connect to the LAN.
>>>
>>> Wifi *IS* 'the LAN'!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wifi doesn't necessarily  link the computers together when it allows
>> them to use the wifi printer.
>
>    So more correctly...
>
>    A wifi device is ON the LAN.
>
>    A wifi router is an additional network segment of the LAN.
>

That as far as the rest of the LAN only has access to the printer, over 
Wifi, that non networked printers can also have access to the printer.
Not a must but a can have.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/11/2015 2:31:33 PM
On 11/09/15 14:52, Robert Heller wrote:
> OTOH, if what you are talking about is really Bluetooth OR Celluar Wireless,
> then things are completely different.

And you don't use the term 'WiFi'...


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 2:39:34 PM
On 11/09/15 15:31, Caver1 wrote:
> non networked printers can also have access to the printer.

Pardon?



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 2:40:17 PM
On 09/11/2015 10:39 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/09/15 14:52, Robert Heller wrote:
>> OTOH, if what you are talking about is really Bluetooth OR Celluar Wireless,
>> then things are completely different.
>
> And you don't use the term 'WiFi'...
>
>

Wasn't talking about either one.


-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/11/2015 3:00:23 PM
On 09/11/2015 10:40 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/09/15 15:31, Caver1 wrote:
>> non networked printers can also have access to the printer.
>
> Pardon?
>
>
>

If your printer is accessed through Wifi and not 'networked" any 
Tablet/phone/computer /can/ access it. The printer /can/ be accessible 
without being part of a dedicated network. if it is set up that way.

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/11/2015 3:03:55 PM
On 11/09/15 16:03, Caver1 wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 10:40 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 11/09/15 15:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>> non networked printers can also have access to the printer.
>>
>> Pardon?
>>
>>
>>
>
> If your printer is accessed through Wifi and not 'networked" any
> Tablet/phone/computer /can/ access it. The printer /can/ be accessible
> without being part of a dedicated network. if it is set up that way.
>
No read what you wrote, that I quoted.


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 3:24:04 PM
On 09/11/2015 11:24 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/09/15 16:03, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 09/11/2015 10:40 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 11/09/15 15:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>>> non networked printers can also have access to the printer.
>>>
>>> Pardon?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If your printer is accessed through Wifi and not 'networked" any
>> Tablet/phone/computer /can/ access it. The printer /can/ be accessible
>> without being part of a dedicated network. if it is set up that way.
>>
> No read what you wrote, that I quoted.
>
>


OH.  :-[

-- 
Caver1
0
Caver1
9/11/2015 4:38:49 PM
At Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:39:34 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On 11/09/15 14:52, Robert Heller wrote:
> > OTOH, if what you are talking about is really Bluetooth OR Celluar Wireless,
> > then things are completely different.
> 
> And you don't use the term 'WiFi'...

But one *might* use the term "Wireless" and then get confused...

> 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                       
0
Robert
9/11/2015 5:26:22 PM
On 11/09/15 18:26, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:39:34 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11/09/15 14:52, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> OTOH, if what you are talking about is really Bluetooth OR Celluar Wireless,
>>> then things are completely different.
>>
>> And you don't use the term 'WiFi'...
>
> But one *might* use the term "Wireless" and then get confused...
>

Which is what the educational part of Usenet is all about. There are 
standards for WiFi, and they are complete and particular, as there are 
standards for cellular radio and bluetooth.

Using those terms correctly is not pedantry, it is establishing clear 
communication.


>>
>>
>


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 6:57:26 PM
On 11/09/15 17:38, Caver1 wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 11:24 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 11/09/15 16:03, Caver1 wrote:
>>> On 09/11/2015 10:40 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 11/09/15 15:31, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>> non networked printers can also have access to the printer.
>>>>
>>>> Pardon?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If your printer is accessed through Wifi and not 'networked" any
>>> Tablet/phone/computer /can/ access it. The printer /can/ be accessible
>>> without being part of a dedicated network. if it is set up that way.
>>>
>> No read what you wrote, that I quoted.
>>
>>
>
>
> OH.  :-[
>
:-)

-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/11/2015 6:57:45 PM
In alt.os.linux.ubuntu The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> ?????
> -sig-
> New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
> the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
> someone else's pocket.
Might I suggest instead Margaret Thatcher's much funnier,
"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out
of other people's money."
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )
0
John
9/11/2015 10:03:23 PM
On 09/11/15 06:04, Caver1 so wittily quipped:
> 
> My terminology may be wrong but my understanding isn't.
> Tell me if why if you have a Wifi printer that all computers can connect
> to but not even see each other over Wifi but they can communicate over
> ethernet because of setting up of the LAN, how is the Wifi network the
> same as the ethernet network?
> 

I would guess it's using a different subnet, and acting like an access
point or maybe a peer-peer connection.  A *very* clever wifi
implementation could manage this, actually, a client on one subnet AND
an access point for another, on the same device, at the same time (you'd
just need to use 2 mac addresses, that's all, one for each).

Or maybe it just has 2 wifi adaptors, one for client, one as an access
point.  It'd be like a multi-homed system that isn't configured as a router.


0
Big
9/11/2015 10:35:45 PM
On 09/11/2015 03:03 PM, John Forkosh wrote:

> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> ?????
>> -sig-
>> New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
>> the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
>> someone else's pocket.
> Might I suggest instead Margaret Thatcher's much funnier,
> "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out
> of other people's money."
>
	And the problem with Capitalism is sooner or later the elite
capitalists end up with too much money and are able to buy and sell
Congressmen and Senators.  That just happened in California where
Brown lost a vote as he tried to reduce the use of gasoline over
the next 15 years.  That happens in the national Congress as well
and holds back progress toward a sustainable future.  Meantime
the money taken out of circulation by the elite capitalist buys
nothing for the workers and lumpen proles.
	Sooner or later the institution of slavery is reinvented.

	bliss
0
Bobbie
9/11/2015 10:38:45 PM
On 09/11/15 15:03, John Forkosh so wittily quipped:
> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> ?????
>> -sig-
>> New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
>> the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
>> someone else's pocket.

> Might I suggest instead Margaret Thatcher's much funnier,
> "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out
> of other people's money."
> 

I liked the Iron Lady back in the 80's!

"other people's money" indeed - you run out when the producers throw
their hands in the air and say 'Who is John Galt?' and let the moochers
and looters deal with the aftermath.

work hard, earn $XX per hour.
work extra hard, earn $XX/2 per hour (after taxes, that is).

I'll just work 'hard' then.  No use killing myself without sufficient
benefit for doing so.

ok I just had to do that.  enough O.T.

0
Big
9/11/2015 10:43:34 PM
On 09/11/15 15:38, Bobbie Sellers so wittily quipped:
> On 09/11/2015 03:03 PM, John Forkosh wrote:
> 
>> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> ?????
>>> -sig-
>>> New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
>>> the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
>>> someone else's pocket.
>> Might I suggest instead Margaret Thatcher's much funnier,
>> "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out
>> of other people's money."
>>
>     And the problem with Capitalism is sooner or later the elite
> capitalists end up with too much money and are able to buy and sell
> Congressmen and Senators.  That just happened in California where
> Brown lost a vote as he tried to reduce the use of gasoline over
> the next 15 years.  That happens in the national Congress as well
> and holds back progress toward a sustainable future.  Meantime
> the money taken out of circulation by the elite capitalist buys
> nothing for the workers and lumpen proles.
>     Sooner or later the institution of slavery is reinvented.

I am completely baffled that someone would actually say (or even
BELIEVE) that!

*I* don't need nanny-gummint telling *ME* how far I should drive,
penalize me at the gas pump for doing so, or over-tax my 'older' car
that I hang onto because I can't afford a *NEW* one and just happen to
*LIKE* my old one very very much!!!  And I don't wanna be *TRACKED* and
PUNISHED for what some gummint-dweeb "feels" I shouldn't do.  Hell,
let's all just put "windows 10" in our cars while we're at it... (not)

Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.  guess
what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?

glad to know that horrible overstepping of gummint authority DIED, even
in Califonia's assembly.  There may still be hope...

only a freedom-hating ignorant uninformed "speaks as he's been
indoctrinated" *FOOL* would believe that it was a good idea to pass that
legislation.


ok enough O.T. I guess.  I just *had* to respond to *that* one.

0
Big
9/11/2015 10:52:59 PM
On 2015-09-11, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> My terminology may be wrong but my understanding isn't.
> Tell me if why if you have a Wifi printer that all computers can connect 
> to but not even see each other over Wifi but they can communicate over 
> ethernet because of setting up of the LAN, how is the Wifi network the 
> same as the ethernet network?

I'm not following this thread so forgive me if I am repeating something
already said before. 

How you setup WiFi may play a role. 

Some hook up WiFi to their cable modem as an example, and the WiFi
router is their network, which is often 192.168.1.1 for the default
route and 255.255.255.0 for the netmask. 

If you add a printer via WiFi and it gains it's IP Address from your
wifi router than it is on this network. The network being 192.168.1. 

Now, let's just say you have a cable modem and it is connected to
something else. I myself have a pFsense firewall and that feeds into a
Cisco switch. My pFsense firewall is my DHCP server. And I have it set
to 192.168.1 as the network, same as many popular simple wifi routers.
But so far I have no WiFi. 

Now at this stage I can add WiFi as an access point to my network. That
means that the WiFi device is not a router, it's an access point. It
joins the existing network and provides WiFi access only. No DHCP, no
routing, no nothing. That's one way to do it. 

Another way is to attach a WiFi router out of the box to this same
network, in which case it might becomes it's own network with NAT turned
on. So the WiFi device may be acting as a router and create it's own
network, likely 10.x as it's network. Devices attached via WiFi would be
on the 10.x segment and devices on the switch would be on the 192.168.1.
segment. 

This can complicate things. If you're adding wifi to an existing
network, best to add it as an access point only. 

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
0
Marek
9/11/2015 10:55:53 PM
On 2015-09-11, John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:

> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ?????
>> -sig-
>> New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
>> the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
>> someone else's pocket.
>
> Might I suggest instead Margaret Thatcher's much funnier,
> "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out
> of other people's money."

Unfortunately, right-wingers also have a tendency to run out of
other people's money.  It seems to be a characteristic of any
government, regardless of which side they're on.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
0
Charlie
9/12/2015 12:05:43 AM
On 2015-09-11, Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:

> Another way is to attach a WiFi router out of the box to this same
> network, in which case it might becomes it's own network with NAT turned
> on. So the WiFi device may be acting as a router and create it's own
> network, likely 10.x as it's network. Devices attached via WiFi would be
> on the 10.x segment and devices on the switch would be on the 192.168.1.
> segment. 

Not necessarily.  I've configured my wifi router as 192.168.0.1, and it
happily hands out 192.168.0.x addresses to anything, wifi or not.  In fact,
when the laptop on which I'm typing this is in the office I plug in an
Ethernet cable, and ifconfig shows both eth0 and wlan0 with 192.168.0.x
addresses.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
0
Charlie
9/12/2015 12:05:44 AM
On 2015-09-12, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> Unfortunately, right-wingers also have a tendency to run out of
> other people's money.  It seems to be a characteristic of any
> government, regardless of which side they're on.

You broke the code. Government by its very nature is a criminal enterprise
no matter who is in charge.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Roger
9/12/2015 1:10:04 AM
On 11/09/15 23:38, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 03:03 PM, John Forkosh wrote:
>
>> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> ?????
>>> -sig-
>>> New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
>>> the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
>>> someone else's pocket.
>> Might I suggest instead Margaret Thatcher's much funnier,
>> "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out
>> of other people's money."
>>
>      And the problem with Capitalism is sooner or later the elite
> capitalists end up with too much money and are able to buy and sell
> Congressmen and Senators.  That just happened in California where
> Brown lost a vote as he tried to reduce the use of gasoline over
> the next 15 years.  That happens in the national Congress as well
> and holds back progress toward a sustainable future.  Meantime
> the money taken out of circulation by the elite capitalist buys
> nothing for the workers and lumpen proles.
>      Sooner or later the institution of slavery is reinvented.
>
>      bliss

Yes, but socialism is not the answer.
Capitalism versus socialism is a pseudo conflict invented by Marx, who 
was a bitter twisted  hater of everyone with more than him.

Consider: if no one but the capitalist has money, who is he going to 
sell his goods to?

If no one has more money than anyone else, and there is no capital, who 
is going to build the factories to make the goods that people want to buy?

Two sides of the same coin.

And the war is invented and promulgated by men who seek power over other 
men.





-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/12/2015 7:03:05 AM
On 12/09/15 02:10, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2015-09-12, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, right-wingers also have a tendency to run out of
>> other people's money.  It seems to be a characteristic of any
>> government, regardless of which side they're on.
>
> You broke the code. Government by its very nature is a criminal enterprise
> no matter who is in charge.
>

Government is a self legalising protection racket.
Democracy is merely a way to change it slightly without using guns



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/12/2015 7:05:28 AM
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:

> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want. 
> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?

Save the planet?
0
mechanic
9/12/2015 9:29:42 AM
On 2015-09-12, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
> Save the planet?

"The planet" doesn't need to be "saved."

Take a look at the people purveying the various environmental scams.
(Not necessarily the rank-and-file useful idiots, but those leading the
charge.)  They don't act like "the planet" needs to be "saved." There
is no real environmental crisis in their minds, evidenced by the fact
that they continue to jet around the world at whim and travel in fleets
of large SUVs for ground transport. They live in huge, energy-hungry
homes. When they themselves start acting like "the planet" needs to be
"saved" rather than taking the attitude that conservation is only for
the little people then it *might* be time to take the environazis more
seriously.

Until then, I work hard to make my energy consumption (and "carbon
footprint") on a level with theirs. Increased energy use and increase
carbon output equals increased prosperity.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Roger
9/12/2015 1:27:18 PM
OK, here's an update.

I bought a Canon LiDE 220 printer. 

Turned out that even though it was supported by the SANE project, it
was not supported by the version of SANE that I had on my Ubuntu 12.04.

I checked out the latest version of Sane, compiled and installed it,
and works. I also had to change some udev rules.

While it is not perfect, I am happy. Thanks to everyone.

i
0
Ignoramus27044
9/12/2015 2:05:00 PM
On 9/12/15, 6:27 AM, in article 20150912091832@news.eternal-september.org,
"Roger Blake" <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2015-09-12, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>> Save the planet?
> 
> "The planet" doesn't need to be "saved."
> 
> Take a look at the people purveying the various environmental scams.
> (Not necessarily the rank-and-file useful idiots, but those leading the
> charge.)  They don't act like "the planet" needs to be "saved." There
> is no real environmental crisis in their minds, evidenced by the fact
> that they continue to jet around the world at whim and travel in fleets
> of large SUVs for ground transport. They live in huge, energy-hungry
> homes. When they themselves start acting like "the planet" needs to be
> "saved" rather than taking the attitude that conservation is only for
> the little people then it *might* be time to take the environazis more
> seriously.
> 
> Until then, I work hard to make my energy consumption (and "carbon
> footprint") on a level with theirs. Increased energy use and increase
> carbon output equals increased prosperity.

Ah, you want to socialize the costs of pollution so that the rich can live
off the backs of the poor. A lot of conservatives back you on that... so at
least you are not alone.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/12/2015 3:38:14 PM
On 09/12/2015 06:27 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2015-09-12, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>> Save the planet?
>
> "The planet" doesn't need to be "saved."
>
> Take a look at the people purveying the various environmental scams.
> (Not necessarily the rank-and-file useful idiots, but those leading the
> charge.)  They don't act like "the planet" needs to be "saved." There
> is no real environmental crisis in their minds, evidenced by the fact
> that they continue to jet around the world at whim and travel in fleets
> of large SUVs for ground transport. They live in huge, energy-hungry
> homes. When they themselves start acting like "the planet" needs to be
> "saved" rather than taking the attitude that conservation is only for
> the little people then it *might* be time to take the environazis more
> seriously.
>
> Until then, I work hard to make my energy consumption (and "carbon
> footprint") on a level with theirs. Increased energy use and increase
> carbon output equals increased prosperity.
>

	Increased carbon output makes who prosperous?

	And market crashes always work out pretty well for the big brokers 
making them richer.

	bliss
0
Bobbie
9/12/2015 3:53:08 PM
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:27:18 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2015-09-12, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>> Save the planet?
> 
> "The planet" doesn't need to be "saved."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
"I love the freedoms we use to have."
  -George Carlin
0
Wildman
9/12/2015 4:09:41 PM
On 09/12/2015 12:05 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/09/15 02:10, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2015-09-12, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, right-wingers also have a tendency to run out of
>>> other people's money.  It seems to be a characteristic of any
>>> government, regardless of which side they're on.
>>
>> You broke the code. Government by its very nature is a criminal
>> enterprise
>> no matter who is in charge.
>>
>
> Government is a self legalising protection racket.
> Democracy is merely a way to change it slightly without using guns

	Government in the USA was made originally by the rich for the rich who 
are after all the most dangerous people in society.
	Representative Democracy was supposed to obviate the need for
violent revolution but within a couple of generations the buyout of
the elected representatives had begun.
	Without government money would be worth nothing and capitalists
would find it hard to accumulate wealth, because after all creating a
currency, hard or soft, is a government function.
	There is nothing wrong with Regulated Capitalism or with
Regulated Socialism working together as sane people have tried to do
in the USA.  RS neither dissolves the moral fiber nor does RC
sequester wealth beyond the imagination of the average person.

	bliss
0
Bobbie
9/12/2015 4:34:32 PM
On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> 
>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want. 
>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
> 
> Save the planet?
> 

*ugh* - not even remotely close. All
restricting/taxing/unishing/controlling does is empower a small minority
of elitists, at the expense of everyone else, regardless of whatever's
being affected.

"save the planet" - from what?  there's nothing to save it FROM,
regardless of how anyone "feels" (not thinks, thinking people wouldn't
accept that idea).


0
Big
9/12/2015 5:10:18 PM
On 09/12/15 00:03, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
> Capitalism versus socialism is a pseudo conflict invented by Marx

yes, and in doing so, he completely ignores human nature.

money is the measure of the value of something.  That includes work.

If you make $X/hour, that's probably what your work is worth.  If you
make $XXXX/hour, that's probably what your work is worth [I choose to do
things that are worth MORE for that reason].  Paying $X/hour for work
that's worth $XXXX/hour is hardly *FAIR* now is it?  Just because
someone out there can't do the thing that's worth $XXXX/hour doesn't
mean you have to say it's not FAIR if someone ELSE earns "that much" for
doing it.  That's BASS-ACKWARDS.


Humans won't do a damn thing without reward.  The reward for work is
"something of value" equal to the value of the work, an 'equivalent
exchange' if you will.  THAT is fair.  When the exchange is off balance,
problems arise.  Either the work won't be done, or the one paying for
the work will be dissatisfied.  And THAT wouldn't be "fair".


If 2 people do the same job, one does it well, one does it in a mediocre
manner, is it "fair" to pay BOTH of them the same wage?  *NO*!  The
result, if you do not reward the better employee, is that the better
employee will either QUIT TRYING HARD, or leave that job for something
else.  And the mediocre employee will be encouraged to STAY THAT WAY,
because there's no reward for improvement.


If you pay someone to work 20 hours per week at a rate of $50/hour
(after taxes), but working 40 hours per week gets you an equivalent rate
of $35/hour (after taxes), is that *FAIR* ???  [that is the
'progressive' tax rate, at work]

Is it *FAIR* for a MARRIED person to earn more per hour (after taxes)
than someone who is *SINGLE* ???  The work is the SAME.


Socialism, communism, fascism, all cut from the same cloth.  It goes
against basic human nature, and you end up with a MEDIOCRE society,
heavily in debt, sunk to the depths of economic collapses by the
moochers and the looters who seem to ALWAYS "prosper" under such a system.

</AynRand mode>

0
Big
9/12/2015 5:20:37 PM
On 09/12/15 07:05, Ignoramus27044 so wittily quipped:
> OK, here's an update.
> 
> I bought a Canon LiDE 220 printer. 
> 
> Turned out that even though it was supported by the SANE project, it
> was not supported by the version of SANE that I had on my Ubuntu 12.04.
> 
> I checked out the latest version of Sane, compiled and installed it,
> and works. I also had to change some udev rules.
> 
> While it is not perfect, I am happy. Thanks to everyone.
> 
> i
> 

what does your /etc/apt/sources.list file have in it?  Just curious.
you may be able to get updated packages if you're not tracking the
release version.  I remember editing that file to do just that, so I
could get updated versions of various things.


0
Big
9/12/2015 5:24:24 PM
On Saturday 12 Sep 2015 00:03, John Forkosh conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> ?????
>> -sig-
>> New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart
>> in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is
>> in someone else's pocket.
> Might I suggest instead Margaret Thatcher's much funnier,
> "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out
> of other people's money."

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipe6CMvW0Dg

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
9/12/2015 6:32:00 PM
On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>
>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>
>> Save the planet?

	You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.

>>
>
> *ugh* - not even remotely close. All
> restricting/taxing/unishing/controlling does is empower a small minority
> of elitists, at the expense of everyone else, regardless of whatever's
> being affected.
>
> "save the planet" - from what?  there's nothing to save it FROM,
> regardless of how anyone "feels" (not thinks, thinking people wouldn't
> accept that idea).
>
>
	None are so blind as those who refuse the copious data assembled
as the Polar Ice decreases and so do the species dependent upon it, the
seas absorb more carbon dioxide becoming acidified making it harder for
coral and shellfish to form skeletons, and particulate emissions from
coal-powered industrialization in China are affecting the West Coast of
North America(historical data point, as Europe industrialized, African
droughts increased).

	But the planet will go on revolving on its axis amd around Sol
for the foreseeable future but it won't be enlivened by homo sapiens 
sapiens because no matter how sapient the homo he fails to believe
in his power to disrupt his life support system.  And this has been
going on since farming was invented and keeping animals became a
human need.

	Too bad.

	bliss
0
Bobbie
9/12/2015 7:12:47 PM
On 12/09/15 20:12, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>   None are so blind as those who refuse the copious data assembled
> as the Polar Ice decreases

Increase. For the last three years its been increasing in the Arctic, 
and its been increasing on the Antarctic for the last 15.. Aoart from 
where there is an active volcano under it.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/13/2015 6:47:22 AM
On 2015-09-12, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2015-09-12, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>
>> Save the planet?
>
> "The planet" doesn't need to be "saved."
>
> Take a look at the people purveying the various environmental scams.
> (Not necessarily the rank-and-file useful idiots, but those leading the
> charge.)  They don't act like "the planet" needs to be "saved." There
> is no real environmental crisis in their minds, evidenced by the fact
> that they continue to jet around the world at whim and travel in fleets
> of large SUVs for ground transport. They live in huge, energy-hungry
> homes. When they themselves start acting like "the planet" needs to be
> "saved" rather than taking the attitude that conservation is only for
> the little people then it *might* be time to take the environazis more
> seriously.

"You can't save the earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice."
  -- Dogbert, 2007/06/20

> Until then, I work hard to make my energy consumption (and "carbon
> footprint") on a level with theirs. Increased energy use and increase
> carbon output equals increased prosperity.

"Where there's smoke, there's work!"  -- Firesign Theatre

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
0
Charlie
9/13/2015 5:56:29 PM
On 09/12/15 12:12, Bobbie Sellers so wittily quipped:
> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>
>>> Save the planet?
> 
>     You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.

who say's we're NOT? A bunch of sock-puppet "scientists" paid to get
specific RESULTS in their "research" by leftist control-freaks?  I
assume you think man-made global warming is real.  but it is not.  There
are natural temperature cycles, one or more of which are ~70 years in
length.  You know, that it was REALLY FREAKING COLD in the early 1970's,
but 35 years later, it's WARM!  Then, in 1935 it was WARM too, in fact
HIGHER temperatures than the 2000's.  And ca 1900 it was cold.  And
there are other LONGER cycles, like the one ~1000AD that motivated Eric
the Red to settle Greenland and give it "that name" because, during THAT
warming period, it was GREEN!  Then 250 years later, cold again.  Then
250 years after that, WARM!  Then 250 years later (the 1750's), COLD AS
HELL, like the river Thames freezing over and G. Washington having a
hard time at Valley Forge because it was SO! FREAKING! COLD!.  Then 250
years later, guess what?  Yeah, the 2000's.

NATURAL CYCLES.  Humans aren't affecting it in any way that's
significatn.  Seriously.  And any restrictions that lefty-control-freaks
put on our lives regarding our use of GASOLINE is just a bunch of HORSE
SHIT!  Related, we don't have HORSE SHIT in our streets because we use
gasoline.  Think about THAT one...


anyway.  SANE people don't buy into this chicken-little "sky is falling"
BULLSHIT every time someone with an agenda gets some ink with their
"doom and gloom" nonsense [then want everyone ELSE to pay for it,
change, be restricted, whatever - it's SO typical, same song 2nd verse,
details changed, whole lot worse].


0
Big
9/13/2015 6:23:14 PM
On 09/12/15 23:47, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
> On 12/09/15 20:12, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>   None are so blind as those who refuse the copious data assembled
>> as the Polar Ice decreases
> 
> Increase. For the last three years its been increasing in the Arctic,
> and its been increasing on the Antarctic for the last 15.. Aoart from
> where there is an active volcano under it.
> 
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
> 
> 
> 

yep - thanks for the facts in the face of "believe it because someone
said so".

Guess why the increase?  It's that 70 year cycle.  2000's were a peak
for multiple cycles, actually.  I think there are at least 2 that are
~70 years, and they're currently "in phase", so it's bumpier from cold
(1970's) to warm (2000's) and back down to COOL gain (2040'ish), than it
would be if it were only one cycle.  And there's the 500 year longer
cycle between mini ice ages and warm periods.  And someone with time,
data, and good math analysis techniques could probably identify most of
these cycles, and make accurate predictions.


0
Big
9/13/2015 6:25:54 PM
On 9/13/15, 11:25 AM, in article
5IGdnSmyJ7xUImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/12/15 23:47, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>> On 12/09/15 20:12, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>   None are so blind as those who refuse the copious data assembled
>>> as the Polar Ice decreases
>> 
>> Increase. For the last three years its been increasing in the Arctic,
>> and its been increasing on the Antarctic for the last 15.. Aoart from
>> where there is an active volcano under it.
>> 
>> 
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> yep - thanks for the facts in the face of "believe it because someone
> said so".
> 
> Guess why the increase?  It's that 70 year cycle.  2000's were a peak
> for multiple cycles, actually.  I think there are at least 2 that are
> ~70 years, and they're currently "in phase", so it's bumpier from cold
> (1970's) to warm (2000's) and back down to COOL gain (2040'ish), than it
> would be if it were only one cycle.  And there's the 500 year longer
> cycle between mini ice ages and warm periods.  And someone with time,
> data, and good math analysis techniques could probably identify most of
> these cycles, and make accurate predictions.
> 
> 
Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/13/2015 6:34:55 PM
On 9/13/15, 11:23 AM, in article
5IGdnS6yJ7y0ImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/12/15 12:12, Bobbie Sellers so wittily quipped:
>> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>> 
>>>> Save the planet?
>> 
>>     You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
>> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
>> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.
> 
> who say's we're NOT? A bunch of sock-puppet "scientists" paid to get
> specific RESULTS in their "research" by leftist control-freaks?

Nope. Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
on this backs the general idea. Their is some debate on details. But these
scientists come from different countries with different funding sources,
come from different political and economic systems, and otherwise share
almost nothing in common other than being scientists. Even the scientists
directly paid by the oil industry have either accepted climate change as
real or dropped any position at all.

Comes down to conservatives have no answer for how to deal with pollution.
With this form their answer is to socialize the costs of the rich - their
go-to solution for most problems.

It is insane. I am not against all forms of socialized assistance, but
conservatives want to remove such assistance from the poor and powerless and
give it to the rich and powerful. Utterly insane.

> I assume you think man-made global warming is real.  but it is not.  There are
> natural temperature cycles, one or more of which are ~70 years in length.  You
> know, that it was REALLY FREAKING COLD in the early 1970's, but 35 years
> later, it's WARM!  Then, in 1935 it was WARM too, in fact HIGHER temperatures
> than the 2000's.  And ca 1900 it was cold.  And there are other LONGER cycles,
> like the one ~1000AD that motivated Eric the Red to settle Greenland and give
> it "that name" because, during THAT warming period, it was GREEN!  Then 250
> years later, cold again.  Then 250 years after that, WARM!  Then 250 years
> later (the 1750's), COLD AS HELL, like the river Thames freezing over and G.
> Washington having a hard time at Valley Forge because it was SO! FREAKING!
> COLD!.  Then 250 years later, guess what?  Yeah, the 2000's.
> 
> NATURAL CYCLES.  Humans aren't affecting it in any way that's significatn.
> Seriously.  And any restrictions that lefty-control-freaks put on our lives
> regarding our use of GASOLINE is just a bunch of HORSE SHIT!  Related, we
> don't have HORSE SHIT in our streets because we use gasoline.  Think about
> THAT one...
> 
> 
> anyway.  SANE people don't buy into this chicken-little "sky is falling"
> BULLSHIT every time someone with an agenda gets some ink with their "doom and
> gloom" nonsense [then want everyone ELSE to pay for it, change, be restricted,
> whatever - it's SO typical, same song 2nd verse, details changed, whole lot
> worse].

All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you want
to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works to lie
about the situation, but an actual scientific site.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/13/2015 6:39:27 PM
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:23:14 -0700, Big Bad Bob
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:

>anyway.  SANE people don't buy into this chicken-little "sky is falling"
>BULLSHIT every time someone with an agenda gets some ink with their
>"doom and gloom" nonsense [then want everyone ELSE to pay for it,
>change, be restricted, whatever - it's SO typical, same song 2nd verse,
>details changed, whole lot worse].


  Oh. boy!  and the stupid putz thinks he is a poet too.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/14/2015 4:26:01 AM
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:25:54 -0700, Big Bad Bob
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:

>On 09/12/15 23:47, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>> On 12/09/15 20:12, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>   None are so blind as those who refuse the copious data assembled
>>> as the Polar Ice decreases
>> 
>> Increase. For the last three years its been increasing in the Arctic,
>> and its been increasing on the Antarctic for the last 15.. Aoart from
>> where there is an active volcano under it.
>> 
>> 
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>yep - thanks for the facts in the face of "believe it because someone
>said so".
>
>Guess why the increase?  It's that 70 year cycle.  2000's were a peak
>for multiple cycles, actually.  I think there are at least 2 that are
>~70 years, and they're currently "in phase", so it's bumpier from cold
>(1970's) to warm (2000's) and back down to COOL gain (2040'ish), than it
>would be if it were only one cycle.  And there's the 500 year longer
>cycle between mini ice ages and warm periods.  And someone with time,
>data, and good math analysis techniques could probably identify most of
>these cycles, and make accurate predictions.
>

  This from a complete jackass trolling the groups, who very likely does
NOT even know what GOES stands for.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/14/2015 4:27:37 AM
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:39:27 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

> but an actual scientific site.

http://www.goes-r.gov/mission/mission.html
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/14/2015 4:30:07 AM
On 9/13/15, 9:30 PM, in article t9jcvah7de6i2dhrghntsnm050ibbj1pjq@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:39:27 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> but an actual scientific site.
> 
> http://www.goes-r.gov/mission/mission.html

I would accept that as a reasonable one. Does not mean their every word
should be seen as gospel, but there general view I would expect to be in
line with the general science. Sure.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 4:56:59 AM
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:23:14 -0700
Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> SANE people don't buy into this chicken-little "sky is falling"
> BULLSHIT every time someone with an agenda gets some ink with their
> "doom and gloom" nonsense [then want everyone ELSE to pay for it,
> change, be restricted, whatever - it's SO typical, same song 2nd
> verse, details changed, whole lot worse].

+1 to that.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Here cash is all powerful, the idol placed highest, whether one sweat,
thieve, grind others down, or scheme for it. 
	Fafhrd
		Fritz Leiber's "Ill Met In Lankhmar"
0
Cybe
9/14/2015 5:29:26 AM
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:56:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>On 9/13/15, 9:30 PM, in article t9jcvah7de6i2dhrghntsnm050ibbj1pjq@4ax.com,
>"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:39:27 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> Gave us:
>> 
>>> but an actual scientific site.
>> 
>> http://www.goes-r.gov/mission/mission.html
>
>I would accept that as a reasonable one. Does not mean their every word
>should be seen as gospel, but there general view I would expect to be in
>line with the general science. Sure.

  "Their word"  Is the result of real observations with real
instruments, idiot.

  They have provided ZERO opinions, or general views, or gospels.

  Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar"

or "hi res atmospheric imaging assembly"
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/14/2015 7:39:58 AM
On 9/14/15, 12:39 AM, in article aeucvatqib9v5efr0a2i92a63qq77qjqk9@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:56:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> On 9/13/15, 9:30 PM, in article t9jcvah7de6i2dhrghntsnm050ibbj1pjq@4ax.com,
>> "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:39:27 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> Gave us:
>>> 
>>>> but an actual scientific site.
>>> 
>>> http://www.goes-r.gov/mission/mission.html
>> 
>> I would accept that as a reasonable one. Does not mean their every word
>> should be seen as gospel, but there general view I would expect to be in
>> line with the general science. Sure.
> 
>   "Their word"  Is the result of real observations with real
> instruments, 

Right. But there are still questions on what observations mean and questions
on details... and the science is still growing. But the idea that man-made
global climate change is real and happening now is strongly supported.

> idiot.

Sorry you feel so bad about yourself.

>   They have provided ZERO opinions, or general views, or gospels.
> 
>   Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar"
> 
> or "hi res atmospheric imaging assembly"

Can you be more specific with what you are looking for? I am happy to help
you with the research you are trying to do.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 8:03:20 AM
On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.

Well exactly.

The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any 
significance whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/14/2015 8:45:07 AM
On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
> Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
> on this backs the general idea

How many of those are NOT funded by governments with political agendas?


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/14/2015 8:45:49 AM
On 9/14/15, 1:45 AM, in article mt61eq$7o2$2@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
> 
> Well exactly.
> 
> The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any
> significance whatsoever.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
> 
Can you show any evidence for your claim? Your video clearly is not a
scientific source and just repeats well known fallacies.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:04:54 AM
On 14/09/15 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
>
> Well exactly.
>
> The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any
> significance whatsoever.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
>
>
.... and dinosaur fossils are the creations of the devil, meant to mislead us!

-- 
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/php/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
0
Henry
9/14/2015 9:06:04 AM
On 9/14/15, 1:45 AM, in article mt61g3$7o2$3@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>> Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
>> on this backs the general idea
> 
> How many of those are NOT funded by governments with political agendas?

Different political agendas... and different funding sources, including the
oil industry. 

The idea it is a big conspiracy is absurd and pushed to support socialized
support for the risks and costs of those who pollute. Conservatives LOVE
socialism for the rich.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:06:26 AM
On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you want
> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works to lie
> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.

Ther is data, and there is inference.

Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the 
correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.

Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995' 
does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth 
got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.



This is the Big Lie of AGW advocates, that those who oppose it deny the 
warming. No one does. What they deny is the proof of causation by CO2.

And links to sites saying 'yebbut it got warmer' are totally irrelevant 
since it stopped getting significantly warmer around two decades ago, 
whilst atmospheric CO2 climbed in a fairly linear fashion.

That at the barest minimum means something else is going on, a 'fact' 
that was *DENIED* by the alarmists decades ago when they claimed that 
CO2 increase was the *ONLY* significant driver of late 20th century warming.

Patently it wasn't.

Correlation is not causation, and when correlation breaks down as 
comprehensively as it does, causation cannot be preserved, except by 
lying and manipulating the data in a disgraceful way, which is what is 
being pursued to save some academic careers and government funding.

Just about every prediction made by the alarmists has turned out to be 
false. Arctic ice is increasing, polar bears are increasing, glaciers 
that are now melting have been shown to have melted far more in the 
past, Antarctic ice is increasing, there hasn't been a major Atlantic 
hurricane his year at all, the atmospheric hotspots predicted by AGW 
theory stubbornly refuse to appear, an the weather appears to be 
boringly normal and familiar in the main.

Meanwhile people who point out that as far as the surface goes 50% of 
the heat loss is not by direct radiation, but by turbulent convection to 
the upper atmosphere beyond the reach of 90% of the CO2, and cloud cover 
has an effect on temperature several orders of magnitude above that of 
CO2, and that if there is one thing even the best computers cannot do, 
its model turbulent convection at the sort of scale necessary to get a 
meaningful answer, get shouted down by a bunch of people with vested 
interest in preserving a funding gravy train, to whom, because its the 
only maths they CAN do, linear equations are God, and because the non 
linear equations of convection and turbulence and the water cycle are 
beyond current mathematical modelling, are simply ignored!

It is a complete disgrace.

No one has any CLUE as to what really dominates the climate in terms of 
feedback systems and drivers, external or internal.

Climate science as it has been promoted is nothing more than a 
convenient lie, a gravy train of immense proportions that people have 
found gives then easy access to government funding for research, 
government subsidies for specious renewable energy products, the excuse 
to increase political power and forge political careers, and the excuse 
for some forms of energy to be given preference over others.

It is the triumph of rent seeking over reason.



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/14/2015 9:08:16 AM
On 9/14/15, 2:06 AM, in article D21BDC22.5B803%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 9/14/15, 1:45 AM, in article mt61g3$7o2$3@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>> Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
>>> on this backs the general idea
>> 
>> How many of those are NOT funded by governments with political agendas?
> 
> Different political agendas... and different funding sources, including the
> oil industry. 
> 
> The idea it is a big conspiracy is absurd and pushed to support socialized
> support for the risks and costs of those who pollute. Conservatives LOVE
> socialism for the rich.
> 
LOL! Skeptical Science even has a page on the guy who made the video. Now
they are not authoritative either, but they reference sources which are:

<http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html>

Yeah, that video is not a reputable scientific source and is trivial to
debunk. 


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:09:29 AM
On 9/14/15, 2:06 AM, in article s8ficc-dad.ln1@Ubuntu.mike-r.com, "Henry
Crun" <mike@rechtman.com> wrote:

> On 14/09/15 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
>>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
>> 
>> Well exactly.
>> 
>> The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any
>> significance whatsoever.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
>> 
>> 
> ... and dinosaur fossils are the creations of the devil, meant to mislead us!
> 
Oh. I did not consider that. Given that new info I accept the video as
absolute truth. :)


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:11:17 AM
On 9/14/15, 2:08 AM, in article mt62q6$aaq$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you want
>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works to lie
>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
> 
> Ther is data, and there is inference.
> 
> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.

Breaking of what correlation. Oh, the myth about the pause in global
warming. Again, believe what you wish but I choose to accept the science and
not deny it.

> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.

Yes: your comments there are a straw man... implying that the evidence you
point to is the only evidence we have.

> This is the Big Lie of AGW advocates, that those who oppose it deny the
> warming. No one does. What they deny is the proof of causation by CO2.

And then you double down on your straw man. OK. Again, I will accept science
and logic over your beliefs.

> And links to sites saying 'yebbut it got warmer' are totally irrelevant
> since it stopped getting significantly warmer around two decades ago,
> whilst atmospheric CO2 climbed in a fairly linear fashion.

Another claim that is not true. Fine.

<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-pau
sed-study-finds>

Again, I prefer to stick with the science, not your wishes and political
push to help rich people get socialized support. Just a personal preference
of mine. You can believe how you wish.

> That at the barest minimum means something else is going on, a 'fact'
> that was *DENIED* by the alarmists decades ago when they claimed that
> CO2 increase was the *ONLY* significant driver of late 20th century warming.

Who claimed this? And what alarmists? Again, I prefer to stick to the
science.

> Patently it wasn't.
> 
> Correlation is not causation, and when correlation breaks down as
> comprehensively as it does, causation cannot be preserved, except by
> lying and manipulating the data in a disgraceful way, which is what is
> being pursued to save some academic careers and government funding.

Unsupported nonsense which is not backed by evidence. OK, that is what you
accept.

I will accept the science.

> Just about every prediction made by the alarmists has turned out to be
> false.

I do not know what "alarmists" you are speaking of... but I look to the
scientists and the science, not "alarmists".

> Arctic ice is increasing

Nope: 
<http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm>

> , polar bears are increasing,

Again, I stick with the science and not the deniers:

<http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm>

> glaciers that are now melting have been shown to have melted far more in the
> past, 

Is it safe to assume you just accept all 176 of these anti-science myths?

<http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>

Or do you need to reference then one by one?

> Antarctic ice is increasing, there hasn't been a major Atlantic
> hurricane his year at all, the atmospheric hotspots predicted by AGW
> theory stubbornly refuse to appear, an the weather appears to be
> boringly normal and familiar in the main.
> 
> Meanwhile people who point out that as far as the surface goes 50% of
> the heat loss is not by direct radiation, but by turbulent convection to
> the upper atmosphere beyond the reach of 90% of the CO2, and cloud cover
> has an effect on temperature several orders of magnitude above that of
> CO2, and that if there is one thing even the best computers cannot do,
> its model turbulent convection at the sort of scale necessary to get a
> meaningful answer, get shouted down by a bunch of people with vested
> interest in preserving a funding gravy train, to whom, because its the
> only maths they CAN do, linear equations are God, and because the non
> linear equations of convection and turbulence and the water cycle are
> beyond current mathematical modelling, are simply ignored!
> 
> It is a complete disgrace.
> 
> No one has any CLUE as to what really dominates the climate in terms of
> feedback systems and drivers, external or internal.
> 
> Climate science as it has been promoted is nothing more than a
> convenient lie, a gravy train of immense proportions that people have
> found gives then easy access to government funding for research,
> government subsidies for specious renewable energy products, the excuse
> to increase political power and forge political careers, and the excuse
> for some forms of energy to be given preference over others.
> 
> It is the triumph of rent seeking over reason.

Again: you can believe the anti-science nonsense pushed by conservatives, I
will accept the science.

Neither of us shall change our minds. I am OK with that.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:28:58 AM
On 14/09/15 10:06, Henry Crun wrote:
> On 14/09/15 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
>>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
>>
>> Well exactly.
>>
>> The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any
>> significance whatsoever.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
>>
>>
> ... and dinosaur fossils are the creations of the devil, meant to
> mislead us!
>
Good grief. That is a totally disgraceful remark. I point you at a 
video, made by a first class scientist, and you want to hand wave it 
away with comparison to creationism?

The religious component of green theory is the one you should be 
comparing it to.



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/14/2015 9:29:49 AM
On 14/09/15 10:09, Snit wrote:
> On 9/14/15, 2:06 AM, in article D21BDC22.5B803%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/15, 1:45 AM, in article mt61g3$7o2$3@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
>> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>> Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
>>>> on this backs the general idea
>>>
>>> How many of those are NOT funded by governments with political agendas?
>>
>> Different political agendas... and different funding sources, including the
>> oil industry.
>>
>> The idea it is a big conspiracy is absurd and pushed to support socialized
>> support for the risks and costs of those who pollute. Conservatives LOVE
>> socialism for the rich.
>>
> LOL! Skeptical Science even has a page on the guy who made the video. Now
> they are not authoritative either, but they reference sources which are:
>
> <http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html>
>
> Yeah, that video is not a reputable scientific source and is trivial to
> debunk.
>
>
Skeptical science? Don't make me laugh.

Its bot sceptical and its not science.


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/14/2015 9:30:36 AM
On 9/14/15, 2:29 AM, in article mt642k$ceh$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 14/09/15 10:06, Henry Crun wrote:
>> On 14/09/15 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
>>>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
>>> 
>>> Well exactly.
>>> 
>>> The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any
>>> significance whatsoever.
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
>>> 
>>> 
>> ... and dinosaur fossils are the creations of the devil, meant to
>> mislead us!
>> 
> Good grief. That is a totally disgraceful remark. I point you at a
> video, made by a first class scientist, and you want to hand wave it
> away with comparison to creationism?
> 
> The religious component of green theory is the one you should be
> comparing it to.

<http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html>

You pointed to a video filled with non-scientific, non-supported claims.

I am NOT telling you to disregard it... but I prefer to accept the science
instead. 


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:34:03 AM
On 9/14/15, 2:30 AM, in article mt6443$ceh$2@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 14/09/15 10:09, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/14/15, 2:06 AM, in article D21BDC22.5B803%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9/14/15, 1:45 AM, in article mt61g3$7o2$3@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
>>> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
>>>>> on this backs the general idea
>>>> 
>>>> How many of those are NOT funded by governments with political agendas?
>>> 
>>> Different political agendas... and different funding sources, including the
>>> oil industry.
>>> 
>>> The idea it is a big conspiracy is absurd and pushed to support socialized
>>> support for the risks and costs of those who pollute. Conservatives LOVE
>>> socialism for the rich.
>>> 
>> LOL! Skeptical Science even has a page on the guy who made the video. Now
>> they are not authoritative either, but they reference sources which are:
>> 
>> <http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html>
>> 
>> Yeah, that video is not a reputable scientific source and is trivial to
>> debunk.
>> 
>> 
> Skeptical science? Don't make me laugh.
> 
> Its bot sceptical and its not science.
> 
Read what I wrote. :)


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:34:19 AM
On 14/09/15 10:34, Snit wrote:
> On 9/14/15, 2:29 AM, in article mt642k$ceh$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 14/09/15 10:06, Henry Crun wrote:
>>> On 14/09/15 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Well exactly.
>>>>
>>>> The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any
>>>> significance whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ... and dinosaur fossils are the creations of the devil, meant to
>>> mislead us!
>>>
>> Good grief. That is a totally disgraceful remark. I point you at a
>> video, made by a first class scientist, and you want to hand wave it
>> away with comparison to creationism?
>>
>> The religious component of green theory is the one you should be
>> comparing it to.
>
> <http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html>
>
> You pointed to a video filled with non-scientific, non-supported claims.
>
> I am NOT telling you to disregard it... but I prefer to accept the science
> instead.
>

Then what on earth are you doing going to 'skepticalscience.com' which 
is nothing to do with science per se?

Its a vanity project totally funded by a blogger and writer, John Cook.

Its been debunked so many times and has the worst reputation of utter 
propaganda of any site and is dedicated entirely to providing what it 
claims are debunks of every single serious attempt to be sceptical.


Only the truly stupid actually believe anything it says, even climate 
scientists who support AGW stay well clear...

>


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/14/2015 9:46:36 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 01:03:20 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>Can you be more specific with what you are looking for? I am happy to help
>you with the research you are trying to do.

  The suggestion was to YOU, you fucking retard.  I am not "looking" for
anything.

  There are images, which are examples of the work their instruments do,
you pathetic worm.  Squirm all you want, putz, but you are transparent.

  I stood next to a space shuttle, whereas you likely have no clue just
how big they are, much less what they did for the world in the way of
science.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/14/2015 1:42:49 PM
On 9/14/15, 2:46 AM, in article mt6523$eev$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 14/09/15 10:34, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/14/15, 2:29 AM, in article mt642k$ceh$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
>> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14/09/15 10:06, Henry Crun wrote:
>>>> On 14/09/15 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 13/09/15 19:34, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well exactly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The real science and the actual evidence is 97% against AGW being of any
>>>>> significance whatsoever.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> ... and dinosaur fossils are the creations of the devil, meant to
>>>> mislead us!
>>>> 
>>> Good grief. That is a totally disgraceful remark. I point you at a
>>> video, made by a first class scientist, and you want to hand wave it
>>> away with comparison to creationism?
>>> 
>>> The religious component of green theory is the one you should be
>>> comparing it to.
>> 
>> <http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html>
>> 
>> You pointed to a video filled with non-scientific, non-supported claims.
>> 
>> I am NOT telling you to disregard it... but I prefer to accept the science
>> instead.
>> 
> 
> Then what on earth are you doing going to 'skepticalscience.com' which
> is nothing to do with science per se?

It references scientific sites, but, hey, good point about looking at
actual, authoritative, scientific sites. Not a site from a single person or
even small group with a possible political agenda or whatever, but large
scientific organizations.

There are about 200 of them with positions on man-made global climate
change... with a significant subset of those who have posted information on
their sites and go into some detail.

I am willing to go with any of those. From any country. From any funding
source. From any political ties.

Why don't you name one? If you do I can pretty much assure you I will accept
the basic ideas they show. I will also accept that the science is still
growing and we are still learning and there are debates on details and
different models which, while they are similar, make somewhat different
predictions, etc.

> Its a vanity project totally funded by a blogger and writer, John Cook.
> 
> Its been debunked so many times and has the worst reputation of utter
> propaganda of any site and is dedicated entirely to providing what it
> claims are debunks of every single serious attempt to be sceptical.

Can you point to some of these sites that debunk it? You know - actual
scientific groups and not just some "blogger and writer" - which say that
site is substantially wrong? Any which substantially disagree with the
content there?

I think we both know the answer: no. You cannot. You cannot find any
scientific group which actually disagrees in any substantial way with what
is said there.

And if this is true, which it surely is, the question becomes why you reject
it when it is so consistent with the known information?
 
> Only the truly stupid actually believe anything it says, even climate
> scientists who support AGW stay well clear...

By all means show where it and major scientific sites have substantial
disagreements with each other. Substantial: if you look at different sites
they disagree with each other - and in science that is fine! Different
studies will find somewhat different things - that is fine. We are looking
at the overall, big picture.

Where is that site disagreeing with the accepted science?



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 4:32:10 PM
On 9/14/15, 6:42 AM, in article cgjdvalp5gsv9qq4su4d01ndfc8drhv5sd@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 01:03:20 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> Can you be more specific with what you are looking for? I am happy to help
>> you with the research you are trying to do.
> 
>   The suggestion was to YOU, you fucking retard.  I am not "looking" for
> anything.

You asked me to do some Googling for you to help you find something, but you
were not specific with what you were looking for nor what you hoped to gain
from having others help you with such searches.

If you are more clear on this I am happy to help... even with your poor
attitude. 

>   There are images, which are examples of the work their instruments do,
> you pathetic worm.  Squirm all you want, putz, but you are transparent.
> 
>   I stood next to a space shuttle, whereas you likely have no clue just
> how big they are, much less what they did for the world in the way of
> science.

I actually was with the number 11 teacher when the shuttle with the teacher
blew up. I have handled the heat tiles and my uncle is a retired NASA
scientist. But, really, pulling our junk out and plopping it on the table is
not getting us anywhere and is not helpful.

The offer still remains: you asked me to do a Google search for you - I am
happy to once I know more of what you are looking for and how I can help
you. 


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 4:37:49 PM
On 09/13/15 11:34, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/13/15, 11:25 AM, in article
> 5IGdnSmyJ7xUImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/15 23:47, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>> On 12/09/15 20:12, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>>   None are so blind as those who refuse the copious data assembled
>>>> as the Polar Ice decreases
>>>
>>> Increase. For the last three years its been increasing in the Arctic,
>>> and its been increasing on the Antarctic for the last 15.. Aoart from
>>> where there is an active volcano under it.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> yep - thanks for the facts in the face of "believe it because someone
>> said so".
>>
>> Guess why the increase?  It's that 70 year cycle.  2000's were a peak
>> for multiple cycles, actually.  I think there are at least 2 that are
>> ~70 years, and they're currently "in phase", so it's bumpier from cold
>> (1970's) to warm (2000's) and back down to COOL gain (2040'ish), than it
>> would be if it were only one cycle.  And there's the 500 year longer
>> cycle between mini ice ages and warm periods.  And someone with time,
>> data, and good math analysis techniques could probably identify most of
>> these cycles, and make accurate predictions.
>>
>>
> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
> 
> 

that WAS evidence.

0
Big
9/14/2015 5:05:32 PM
On 09/14/15 09:32, Snit so wittily quipped:

(regarding web sites and man-made global warming)

> Why don't you name one? If you do I can pretty much assure you I will accept
> the basic ideas they show. I will also accept that the science is still
> growing and we are still learning and there are debates on details and
> different models which, while they are similar, make somewhat different
> predictions, etc.

I have a nice web site on the subject.

http://mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html

lots of links.  lots of info.

0
Big
9/14/2015 5:09:31 PM
On 9/14/15, 10:05 AM, in article
D7WdnWyV2NHuY2vInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/13/15 11:34, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/13/15, 11:25 AM, in article
>> 5IGdnSmyJ7xUImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/12/15 23:47, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>>> On 12/09/15 20:12, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>>>   None are so blind as those who refuse the copious data assembled
>>>>> as the Polar Ice decreases
>>>> 
>>>> Increase. For the last three years its been increasing in the Arctic,
>>>> and its been increasing on the Antarctic for the last 15.. Aoart from
>>>> where there is an active volcano under it.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> yep - thanks for the facts in the face of "believe it because someone
>>> said so".
>>> 
>>> Guess why the increase?  It's that 70 year cycle.  2000's were a peak
>>> for multiple cycles, actually.  I think there are at least 2 that are
>>> ~70 years, and they're currently "in phase", so it's bumpier from cold
>>> (1970's) to warm (2000's) and back down to COOL gain (2040'ish), than it
>>> would be if it were only one cycle.  And there's the 500 year longer
>>> cycle between mini ice ages and warm periods.  And someone with time,
>>> data, and good math analysis techniques could probably identify most of
>>> these cycles, and make accurate predictions.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Nice ideas but I prefer to stick to the science and the actual evidence.
>> 
>> 
> 
> that WAS evidence.

You said that is the reason for the increase as if the models do not account
for natural cycles. Your "evidence" shows ignorance / denial of the science.

Again, I will stick with the actual evidence and science. NOT asking you to.
Just letting you know my choice.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 5:37:08 PM
On 9/14/15, 10:09 AM, in article
D7WdnW-V2NH_YmvInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 09:32, Snit so wittily quipped:
> 
> (regarding web sites and man-made global warming)
> 
>> Why don't you name one? If you do I can pretty much assure you I will accept
>> the basic ideas they show. I will also accept that the science is still
>> growing and we are still learning and there are debates on details and
>> different models which, while they are similar, make somewhat different
>> predictions, etc.
> 
> I have a nice web site on the subject.
> 
> http://mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html
> 
> lots of links.  lots of info.
> 

With links to places like Fox which has repeatedly been shown to be grossly
inaccurate and dishonest on this issue.

Again: why not look at actual scientific sites. Do not expect me to give up
the science and instead accept your push of a political agenda to socialize
the costs and risks of the wealthy. I shall NEVER do that.

I am going to stick with the science and our best information.

If you want I can look at your site in more detail and give specifics where
you show a lack of understanding of the science. Not sure that would help
with anything though. Are you asking for help in understanding the science
and knowing where your site is inaccurate and references completely
disreputable, non-scientific sources which twist things?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 5:40:09 PM
On 09/13/15 11:39, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/13/15, 11:23 AM, in article
> 5IGdnS6yJ7y0ImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/15 12:12, Bobbie Sellers so wittily quipped:
>>> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>>>
>>>>> Save the planet?
>>>
>>>     You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
>>> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
>>> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.
>>
>> who say's we're NOT? A bunch of sock-puppet "scientists" paid to get
>> specific RESULTS in their "research" by leftist control-freaks?
> 
> Nope. Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
> on this backs the general idea.

no, not "every single one".  In fact, there are some significant "man
made climate change disagreers" out there.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-climate-change-myth

http://drtimball.com/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/


only a handful of examples, naturally.  But certainly "every single
scientific organization on the planet" isn't on one side of the issue.
THAT much is certain.


The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
man-made global warming nonsense, either.


0
Big
9/14/2015 5:58:34 PM
On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>> want
>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>> to lie
>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
> 
> Ther is data, and there is inference.
> 
> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
> 
> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.

correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.

> This is the Big Lie of AGW advocates, that those who oppose it deny the
> warming. No one does. What they deny is the proof of causation by CO2.

CO2 can't cause planetary warming.  but warming *DOES* cause increase in
CO2 levels!  This is the same reason that sodas go flat when you let
them warm up.  A physical property of water, its ability to have
dissolved gasses in it, decreases with temperature from 34F to about 160F.

So if the ocean is at equilibrium, if you warm it, the CO2 will
effervesce from the depths, and CO2 levels measured in the vicinity of
the warmer ocean water will be elevated.

elevating CO2, on the other hand, would promote RAIN, as water vapor has
an affinity for CO2 absorption, and the rain would deplete the CO2 [and
probably not affect temperature much].

On my global warming web page I went into detail about how water has
about 100 times the effect as CO2 on global temperatures.  I don't hear
ANYONE griping about how much WATER VAPOR is in the atmosphere.  there
is certainly a LOT MORE of it than CO2.

Also CO2's primary absorption of IR energy is below -50F.  That's MINUS
50.  You know, COLD AS HELL.  So if temperature ever got BELOW -50F,
we'd be REALLY HAPPY to have a CO2 blanket keeping it warmer.

> Correlation is not causation

exactly!

> Just about every prediction made by the alarmists has turned out to be
> false.

that's why I'm glad they didn't get their legislative way at the
beginning of the century, because they'd be taking credit for the
LOWERING OF TEMPERATURES that's happening *RIGHT* *NOW* - "see, it's
working, we need to do MORE!"  that was a predictable situation.

> No one has any CLUE as to what really dominates the climate in terms of
> feedback systems and drivers, external or internal.

I think it's a combination of solar cycles driven by the gravitational
pull of the planets in relation to the earth's position, because tidal
bulges would affect solar output due to localized changes in the
macroscopic cross section for fusion, coupled with localized changes in
the density of the sun.  Note there would be a delayed effect, as it
takes time for photons generated in the core from fusion to reach the
surface of the sun.  The exact value is probably not known, particularly
if it's "in flux" due to constantly moving tidal bulges and surface
activity on the sun.

But I bet you could do a series of discrete fourier transforms and
discover the actual relationships...

[I did some DFT analysis on publically available world temperature data
from U.C. Berkeley, that covers 200 years or so, to come up with some of
my own conclusions, particularly the 70 year cycles]


0
Big
9/14/2015 6:12:07 PM
On 09/14/15 02:28, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> Correlation is not causation, and when correlation breaks down as
>> comprehensively as it does, causation cannot be preserved, except by
>> lying and manipulating the data in a disgraceful way, which is what is
>> being pursued to save some academic careers and government funding.
> 
> Unsupported nonsense which is not backed by evidence. OK, that is what you
> accept.
> 
> I will accept the science.
> 

on this specific issue, here's some science:

http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm1046course/solubility.html

For temperatures between ~34F and ~160F, as temperature increases, the
solubility of CO2 in the water decreases.  Example, soda goes flat as it
warms up.

If CO2 were to be measured in the vicinity of a warming ocean, you would
detect increased levels.  This correlates higher CO2 with higher
temperatures.  It's actual science.

HOWEVER, to draw the conclusion that the CO2 itself is responsible for
the warmer ocean is FALSE.  CO2, in fact, does not absorbe infrared
energy above about -50F in any significant amount to CREATE any
greenhouse effect.  It would, however, help keep the planet out of an
ice age.

WATER VAPOR, on the other hand [something we cannot control], has a
SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER absorption spectrum, extending WELL ABOVE freezing.
 this is why cloudy nights are warm, cloudy days are cool.

the correlation of water vapor in clouds DOES correlate to temperature
changes, and can be demonstrated using the IR absorption characteristics
of water.

This is NOT the case with CO2.

So to make the assumption that CO2 causes warmer oceans (or warmer
anything) because measured levels have gone UP due to warmer oceans, is
FALSE, because there's no mechanism for CO2 to create the warmer
temperatures.

AND IF IT DID, you'd have a condition known as 'thermal runaway'.  But
that would only happen in an UNSTABLE system.  'UNSTABLE system' can be
demonstrated by balancing a ball on your nose.  It CAN be done, but you
have to CONSTANTLY make deliberate adjustments.

A STABLE system is the opposite, in which any change is self-corrected.
 In chemistry, this is typical of a system in EQULIBRIUM, which is in
fact the case for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere vs CO2
concentration in the oceans.


Anwyay, there's your science.

0
Big
9/14/2015 6:20:32 PM
On 09/14/2015 10:58 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> On 09/13/15 11:39, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/13/15, 11:23 AM, in article
>> 5IGdnS6yJ7y0ImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/12/15 12:12, Bobbie Sellers so wittily quipped:
>>>> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Save the planet?
>>>>
>>>>      You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
>>>> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
>>>> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.
>>>
>>> who say's we're NOT? A bunch of sock-puppet "scientists" paid to get
>>> specific RESULTS in their "research" by leftist control-freaks?
>>
>> Nope. Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
>> on this backs the general idea.
>
> no, not "every single one".  In fact, there are some significant "man
> made climate change disagreers" out there.
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/
>
> http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-climate-change-myth
>
> http://drtimball.com/
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/
>
>
> only a handful of examples, naturally.  But certainly "every single
> scientific organization on the planet" isn't on one side of the issue.
> THAT much is certain.
>
>
> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>
>

	Well mankind may not be the cause but if you have a leaky rowboat and a 
bucket do you try to bail it out or fill it up.  We
may not arrest GW but we can stop making it worse by our actions.

	As for the Arctic ice I think the Walruses and the Polar
bears would disagree about the effect on the ice,  The walruses
are having to haul out on dry land, the polar bears have a lot
fewer cups and it is hard for ma bear to make a living hunting
seals when there is less ice.

	In California the sea lions are starving the pups because the
mother sea linon have to travel much further to get food.  The warming
along the coast line affects the food supply.

	Generally I would say Fox is full of hot air on science or
politics. If you hate the government as much as some appear to do
then you should get off the Internet which a Left politician and
Global warming advocate wrote the bill to finance the original
concepts.  So according to your lights, dim though i find them,
the net is likely a conspiracy to control your discourse.

	As a matter of fact I would prefer to believe your
bad ideas but G*d never granted me the gift of belief.  So
I have to go with reported facts and observations.

	Selah!

	bliss


0
Bobbie
9/14/2015 6:26:00 PM
On 9/14/15, 10:58 AM, in article
D-WdnaDsJd98l2rInZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/13/15 11:39, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/13/15, 11:23 AM, in article
>> 5IGdnS6yJ7y0ImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/12/15 12:12, Bobbie Sellers so wittily quipped:
>>>> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Save the planet?
>>>> 
>>>>     You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
>>>> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
>>>> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.
>>> 
>>> who say's we're NOT? A bunch of sock-puppet "scientists" paid to get
>>> specific RESULTS in their "research" by leftist control-freaks?
>> 
>> Nope. Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
>> on this backs the general idea.
> 
> no, not "every single one".  In fact, there are some significant "man
> made climate change disagreers" out there.
> 
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left
> -still-no-warming/

Not a scientific organization but an individual person who denies much of
science, even evolution.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)>

And some of the specific myths he pushes, and their refutations:

<https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm>

If you want we can look at some of these claims and go to actual scientific
sites and not just skeptical science, but if you look at the articles from
skeptical science they generally have the direct links to those scientific
sites. So that would just be an exercise in showing you links from those
pages and maybe finding a bit more.

So again it comes down to me accepting the conclusions from the scientific
organizations and you pointing to individual people who push myths contrary
to the science. 

> http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-
> climate-change-myth

Fox is a misinformation channel. They repeatedly lie about climate change.
To try to use THEM as a source over what was asked for, actual scientific
organizations, is absurd.

In case you are unaware how inaccurate Fox is:

http://gawker.com/5713739/fox-news-memo-dont-mention-science-without-mention
ing-anti-science
-----
Fox News Memo: Don't Mention Science Without Mentioning Anti-Science

| Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change
| data...
| 
| ...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or
| cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that
| such theories are based upon data that critics have called into
| question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions
| as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
-----

But that is not a very scientific source itself (and it speaks of a debate
as if there is one in the scientific community - on details there are but
overall, nope). So how about:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_war
ming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf
-----
| Over a recent six-month period, 93 percent of Fox News Channel�s
| representations of climate science were misleading (37 out of 40
| instances).
| ...
| UCS�s examination finds that the misleading citations include broad
| dismissals of human-caused climate change, disparaging comments
| about individual scientists, rejections of climate science as a body
| of knowledge, and cherry picking of data. Fox News Channel citations
| also included several discussions in which misleading claims
| dominated accurate ones. Furthermore, much of this coverage
| denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in
| scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of
| climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.
-----

Wow. On the topic of climate change the are inaccurate far more than they
are accurate. Other studies find the same:

http://hij.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/13/1940161211425410.abstract
-----
| Evidence from a content analysis of climate change coverage on Fox
| News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox
| takes a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and
| MSNBC. Fox also interviews a greater ratio of climate change
| doubters to believers.
| 
| That is, the views of Republicans are strongly linked with the news
| outlet they watch, regardless of how well that outlet aligns with
| their political predispositions. In contrast, Democrats don�t vary
| much in their beliefs as a function of cable news use. This
| asymmetry suggests that some Republicans, who as a group tend to be
| predisposed toward global warming skepticism, are less skeptical
| when exposed to information on the reality and urgency of climate
| change.
-----

It leads to the bigger question as to why Republicans / conservatives seek
out misinformation to believe and do not accept the best evidence we have.
They tend to be more fear based in their thinking than Democrats / liberals,
which ties into it, but they also want to push socialized support for the
costs and risks of the rich. Having no other answer to the data about
climate change they feel the need to deny it to push their political agenda
of socialism. 

> http://drtimball.com/
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/
> 
> 
> only a handful of examples, naturally.

Actually not a single example of a scientific organization. Not one. Because
there are none. You will not find any.

> But certainly "every single scientific organization on the planet" isn't on
> one side of the issue. THAT much is certain.

Well, they do disagree on details: but note your failure to find a single
scientific organization supporting your anti-science view. Not one.

The petroleum industry used to have a scientific group that did deny... but
even they dropped their denial many years ago.

> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
> man-made global warming nonsense, either.

Nobody is asking him to accept nonsense... but it would be good if he
accepted scientific evidence. Keep in mind these things are NOT the same
(though some individual studies do blur that line, when looking at heavily
researched and studied broad topics that is not the case.)


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 6:50:06 PM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:20:32 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:

> On 09/14/15 02:28, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> Correlation is not causation, and when correlation breaks down as
>>> comprehensively as it does, causation cannot be preserved, except by
>>> lying and manipulating the data in a disgraceful way, which is what is
>>> being pursued to save some academic careers and government funding.
>> 
>> Unsupported nonsense which is not backed by evidence. OK, that is what you
>> accept.
>> 
>> I will accept the science.
>> 
> 
> HOWEVER, to draw the conclusion that the CO2 itself is responsible for
> the warmer ocean is FALSE.

I remember reading a synopsis of a study that was done
on ice cores from Antarctica.  The goal was to show a
correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the
past.  They found the correlation but it was not what
they were expecting (hoping?).  They found that a rise
in temperature *preceded* a rise in CO2, not the other
way around.  FALSE indeed.

Snit:  No I don't have a link.  I'm sure your search
engine works as well as mine.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
"I am Lrrr! Ruler of the planet Omicron Persei 8!"
  -Lrrr
0
Wildman
9/14/2015 6:52:29 PM
On 9/14/15, 11:12 AM, in article
X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>> want
>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>> to lie
>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>> 
>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>> 
>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>> 
>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
> 
> correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
> warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
> years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
> a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.

How is it suspicious looking? It fits very well within the predictions of
the scientific models.

It is claims like this which show you are not familiar with the science.

>> This is the Big Lie of AGW advocates, that those who oppose it deny the
>> warming. No one does. What they deny is the proof of causation by CO2.
> 
> CO2 can't cause planetary warming.  but warming *DOES* cause increase in
> CO2 levels!  

Can you find this claim from ANY scientific organization.

Of course not. It is contrary to the actual scientific findings and models.
I can show you multiple sites showing this... and will if you want. But can
you find a single scientific organization backing this claim?

I think we both know that answer: no.

So again, you are saying you prefer to believe something other than the
science... I am saying I prefer to believe the best information scientists
have been able to come up with.

> This is the same reason that sodas go flat when you let
> them warm up.  A physical property of water, its ability to have
> dissolved gasses in it, decreases with temperature from 34F to about 160F.
> 
> So if the ocean is at equilibrium, if you warm it, the CO2 will
> effervesce from the depths, and CO2 levels measured in the vicinity of
> the warmer ocean water will be elevated.
> 
> elevating CO2, on the other hand, would promote RAIN, as water vapor has
> an affinity for CO2 absorption, and the rain would deplete the CO2 [and
> probably not affect temperature much].
> 
> On my global warming web page I went into detail about how water has
> about 100 times the effect as CO2 on global temperatures.

Can you show a single model that suggests otherwise? Again, I bet not. When
you make claims such as this you are demonstrating how you do not understand
the science.

> I don't hear
> ANYONE griping about how much WATER VAPOR is in the atmosphere.  there
> is certainly a LOT MORE of it than CO2.

Can you find a single scientific organizations saying otherwise? If not this
is a straw man.

> Also CO2's primary absorption of IR energy is below -50F.  That's MINUS
> 50.  You know, COLD AS HELL.  So if temperature ever got BELOW -50F,
> we'd be REALLY HAPPY to have a CO2 blanket keeping it warmer.
> 
>> Correlation is not causation
> 
> exactly!
> 
>> Just about every prediction made by the alarmists has turned out to be
>> false.
> 
> that's why I'm glad they didn't get their legislative way at the
> beginning of the century, because they'd be taking credit for the
> LOWERING OF TEMPERATURES that's happening *RIGHT* *NOW* - "see, it's
> working, we need to do MORE!"  that was a predictable situation.

The idea that temperatures are going down is not accurate. Again, you are
showing you believe something other than the data. So what is it you are
believing if not the data itself?
 
>> No one has any CLUE as to what really dominates the climate in terms of
>> feedback systems and drivers, external or internal.
> 
> I think it's a combination of solar cycles driven by the gravitational
> pull of the planets in relation to the earth's position, because tidal
> bulges would affect solar output due to localized changes in the
> macroscopic cross section for fusion, coupled with localized changes in
> the density of the sun.  Note there would be a delayed effect, as it
> takes time for photons generated in the core from fusion to reach the
> surface of the sun.  The exact value is probably not known, particularly
> if it's "in flux" due to constantly moving tidal bulges and surface
> activity on the sun.
> 
> But I bet you could do a series of discrete fourier transforms and
> discover the actual relationships...
> 
> [I did some DFT analysis on publically available world temperature data
> from U.C. Berkeley, that covers 200 years or so, to come up with some of
> my own conclusions, particularly the 70 year cycles]
> 
> 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 7:01:47 PM
On 2015-09-14, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> no, not "every single one".  In fact, there are some significant "man
> made climate change disagreers" out there.

Also don't forget what the late Reid Bryson, the professor who is widely
regarded as the father of modern climate science, had to say about it:

  https://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/global-warming-is-a-bunch-of-hooey-legendary-professor-of-scientific-climatology/

Interestingly all of this is not really new. In the early 1950s, a
time when many feared that A-bombs were responsible for changing the
earth's climate, Eric Sloane (an early conservationist and the first TV
weatherman), stated the following:

  "There's little doubt about our changing climate. The fierce winters
   of yesterday are disappearing, tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming
   more vicious, and weather trends aren't 'trends' any more. They can't
   be depended upon. Just about anything can happen -- and does."

Sound familiar? Sloane continues:

  "If you are one of the many who wonder if the A-Bomb is responsible
   for our queer weather, you can forget it. It isn't so. What is the
   answer? It's simply that we are riding on the tail end of a glacial
   age and our climate is shifting."

  "...as a matter of fact the polar icecaps are already receding at the
   rate of 500 feet a year, causing climactic changes and raising the level
   of the sea about an inch during the last century. This is a sign of things
   to come."

More familiar-sounding ideas? However, Sloane continues:

  "The glaciers and ice reservoirs began their retreat about 20,000 years
   ago and by 5000 B.C. the weather had become much milder. ... After the
   12th century however, the weather cycle swung low and the climate became
   more severe. Winters became longer and the glaciers reached their
   maximum during the 'Little Ice Age' from 1650 to 1850.' Since 1850
   the glaciers have been retreating under a climate of shorter winters
   and warmer summers."

(Eric Sloane quotes are from the September, 1953 edition of Mechanix
Illustrated magazine for anyone who wants to check them out.)

What's of interest here is that over 60 years ago, people were concerned
about climate change and thought that human activity (in this case,
A-Bombs) was the cause.  However we also have here a meterologist,
probably the most well-known of his time, acknowledging the climactic
changes but showing them to be as a result of natural cycles. (A-bomb
testing was ultimately halted, but not due to climate concerns.)

As an aside, since these effects were seen in 1953 that suggests that the
Warmists would have to have CO2 emissions reduced to pre-1953 levels in order
to "stabilize" the climate. How feasible is that going to be? What effects
will that have on our civilization? Are the crisis-mongers reducing their
own "carbon footprints" to pre-1953 levels?

One of the few advantages to being old is being able to recognize when
history is repeating itself. The main difference is that in the 1950s the
human-caused climate change idea had not been sufficiently developed to
the point where it could be used a a tool for the political aquisition
of power and wealth, so it faded away.

What the "climate change" argument really is about is central management
of all aspects of our lives by a motley crew of control freaks. Having
been involved in the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s myself
I know the motives of that lot from personal experience.  To really
understand the phenomenon you have to follow the the flow of power and
money. The science has been hopelessly corrupted by political influence.

Much like the "scientific studies" made by the tobacco companies showing
that cigarettes were safe, the people paying the bills will usually get
the results that they want:

  http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/

When it comes to "Global Warming/Climate Change," governments and the
U.N. want it and they want it bad.

(You'll never convince the True Believers of course, they are an army
of useful idiots for the power brokers.)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Roger
9/14/2015 7:05:10 PM
On 9/14/15, 11:26 AM, in article mt73c7$cl3$1@dont-email.me, "Bobbie
Sellers" <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> On 09/14/2015 10:58 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>> On 09/13/15 11:39, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> On 9/13/15, 11:23 AM, in article
>>> 5IGdnS6yJ7y0ImjInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
>>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 09/12/15 12:12, Bobbie Sellers so wittily quipped:
>>>>> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>>>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Save the planet?
>>>>> 
>>>>>      You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
>>>>> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
>>>>> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.
>>>> 
>>>> who say's we're NOT? A bunch of sock-puppet "scientists" paid to get
>>>> specific RESULTS in their "research" by leftist control-freaks?
>>> 
>>> Nope. Every single scientific organization on the planet that holds a view
>>> on this backs the general idea.
>> 
>> no, not "every single one".  In fact, there are some significant "man
>> made climate change disagreers" out there.
>> 
>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-lef
>> t-still-no-warming/
>> 
>> http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman
>> -climate-change-myth
>> 
>> http://drtimball.com/
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/
>> 
>> 
>> only a handful of examples, naturally.  But certainly "every single
>> scientific organization on the planet" isn't on one side of the issue.
>> THAT much is certain.
>> 
>> 
>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Well mankind may not be the cause but if you have a leaky rowboat and a
> bucket do you try to bail it out or fill it up.  We
> may not arrest GW but we can stop making it worse by our actions.
> 
> As for the Arctic ice I think the Walruses and the Polar
> bears would disagree about the effect on the ice,  The walruses
> are having to haul out on dry land, the polar bears have a lot
> fewer cups and it is hard for ma bear to make a living hunting
> seals when there is less ice.
> 
> In California the sea lions are starving the pups because the
> mother sea linon have to travel much further to get food.  The warming
> along the coast line affects the food supply.
> 
> Generally I would say Fox is full of hot air on science or
> politics.

I would not only say it but point to research and other sources that shows
Fox is the least accurate source of information and has the least informed
viewers. 

* Watching Fox is correlated with being less informed than watching no news
at all or even with watching Comedy Central

* PBS & NPR viewers / listeners were the most informed

* In a study looking at multiple sources Fox news viewers were 3x as likely
to hold a set of three misconceptions than any other source

* An internal memo from Fox was shown that demonstrated they have a policy
of lying about science to push a right-wing agenda

* Fox news viewers were more likely to shun learning from other sources
(they tend to want an echo-chamber)

* Fox viewers underestimated the death toll of US soldiers in Iraq more than
viewers of other sources

* Fox news has a consistent pro-Republican bias

* Fox news is shown to repeatedly lie about global warming / climate change
(93% of their reporting on this was dishonest or misleading in one report)

* Not just Republicans who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, but
also Democrats

* Watching Fox news is correlated with being ignorant of climate science

* Of stories examined by Poltifact, Fox new has the lowest rating of
accuracy

* Even though Fox is the least reliable, and its viewers the worst informed,
conservatives tend to trust Fox over any other source!

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://illinois-online.org/krassa/ps101/Readings/Kull%20Ramsay%20Lewis%20200
3.pdf

-----
| Standing out in the analysis are Fox and NPR/PBS, but for opposite
| reasons. Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most
| misperceptions. NPR/PBS are notable because their viewers and
| listeners consistently held fewer misperceptions than respondents
| who obtained their information from other news sources.
| ...
| Fox is the most of consistently significant predictor of
| misperceptions.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf
-----
| In this study, the results are very clear: the more people use Fox
| News, the more rumors they have heard and the more they believe. We
| interpret this to mean that exposure to the news network promotes
| rumor contact and belief.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/
-----
| The conclusion: Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people
| learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News,
| lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don�t
| watch any news at all. ... the results show us that there is
| something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on
| these questions than those who don�t watch any news at all.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
Over 60% of the checked claims are rated "Mostly False", "False", or "Pants
on Fire". No other news station comes close to that.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-info
rmed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/
-----
| The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal,
| someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just
| > 1.04 domestic questions correctly � a figure which is significantly
| worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the
| other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to
| answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk
| shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show
| with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
-----

Watching Fox not only was found to be correlated with being less informed
than watching no news at all (it is a misinformation channel), it was
correlated with being less informed than watching a comedy channel. The
"liberal" NPR was coorelated with being most informed. Liberals tend to be
better informed and better educated.

Really, when evidence suggests watching no news at all, or Comedy Central,
leads to being better informed than a "news" station it might not be wise to
refer to them as news station at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
-----
| To answer these and other questions we developed a more systematic
| set of questions that were included in a series of three polls,
| conducted over June through September, with a total of 3,334
| respondents. This was combined with the findings from four other
| polls conducted January through May for a total data set of 8634
| respondents.
....
| Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely
| than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their
| news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These
| variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in
| the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these
| variations can also be found when comparing the demographic
| subgroups of each audience.
....
| Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions� and were
| more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all
| three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there
| was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three
| misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://gawker.com/5713739/fox-news-memo-dont-mention-science-without-mention
ing-anti-science
-----
Fox News Memo: Don't Mention Science Without Mentioning Anti-Science

| Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change
| data...
| 
| ...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or
| cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that
| such theories are based upon data that critics have called into
| question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions
| as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://gabe.palomares.com.au/uni/56.full%20-%20Copy.pdf
-----
| Although the success of Fox News is something to marvel at from a
| commercial perspective, this analysis does illustrate cause for
| concern. Specifically, evidence indicates that the Fox News
| audience prefers news that shares their own point of view on
| politics and issues, while CNN and network news watchers do not. The
| findings go a step further to illustrate that Fox News viewers have
| less familiarity with issues and events in the news that may be
| critical of their point of view. The Fox audience paid less
| attention to the September 11 congressional hearings and reports of
| higher gas prices than those who watch CNN and network news.
| Finally, of the people who were unaware of how many U.S. soldiers
| had died in Iraq (almost half the sample), those who frequently
| watch Fox News were more likely than nonviewers to underestimate the
| death toll.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://archive.battlecreekenquirer.com/assets/pdf/A51963891026.pdf
-----
| In its relatively short life span, Fox News has staked out a
| distinctive reputation for delivering a proconservative perspective
| on issues and events. A systematic comparison of Fox News� coverage
| of national issues with the coverage provided by other new media and
| two ��old�� media (AP and UPI) demonstrated that Fox News�
| reputation was deserved�the outlet�s news coverage showed a
| consistently pro-Republican slant (Groeling & Baum, 2007). Despite
| the fact that real-world conditions generated significantly more
| ��bad news�� stories about Republican candidates contesting the 2006
| congressional elections (due mainly to the series of
| lobbying-related scandals involving Republican incumbents), Fox News
| was the only news outlet in which negative stories about Republicans
| did not outnumber balanced or positive stories.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_war
ming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf
-----
| Over a recent six-month period, 93 percent of Fox News Channel�s
| representations of climate science were misleading (37 out of 40
| instances).
| ...
| UCS�s examination finds that the misleading citations include broad
| dismissals of human-caused climate change, disparaging comments
| about individual scientists, rejections of climate science as a body
| of knowledge, and cherry picking of data. Fox News Channel citations
| also included several discussions in which misleading claims
| dominated accurate ones. Furthermore, much of this coverage
| denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in
| scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of
| climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pd
f
-----
| These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of
| exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also
| not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted
| Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such
| misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser
| margin than those who voted Republican.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/Global-Warming-Fox-News.
pdf
-----
| As shown in Table 1, more exposure to Fox News was associated with
| more rejection of many mainstream scientists� claims about global
| warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that
| ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-the-least-trusted-tv-news-source-among-all-
americans/
-----
| The New Republic looked at the data and gleaned that Fox News, while
| the �most trusted,� also had the most deeply polarized fanbase,
| largely made up of �the Republican Party�s most conservative
| members.�
-----

So even though Fox is the least reliable, and its viewers the worst
informed, conservatives tend to trust Fox over any other source!

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://prq.sagepub.com/content/63/4/834
-----
| The content analysis demonstrates that Fox News�s coverage was more
| favorable to the Republican Party than it was to the Democratic
| Party, while CNN�s coverage was more impartial.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-cover
age-of-un-clima/196387
-----
| Doubters Dominated On Fox News, The Majority Of Whom Were
| Unqualified. Fox News tipped the balance toward those on the
| opposite side of the facts, as 69 percent of guests and 75 percent
| of mentions cast doubt on climate science. Seventy-three percent of
| doubters hosted by Fox News had no background in climate science.
-----
OK, this is from the liberal Media Matters, but Fox's response was to lie
about the consensus among scientists. If they cannot defend themselves
without lying it is hard to take them seriously. The findings of Media
Matters were largely supported elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://hij.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/13/1940161211425410.abstract
-----
| Evidence from a content analysis of climate change coverage on Fox
| News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox
| takes a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and
| MSNBC. Fox also interviews a greater ratio of climate change
| doubters to believers.
| 
| That is, the views of Republicans are strongly linked with the news
| outlet they watch, regardless of how well that outlet aligns with
| their political predispositions. In contrast, Democrats don�t vary
| much in their beliefs as a function of cable news use. This
| asymmetry suggests that some Republicans, who as a group tend to be
| predisposed toward global warming skepticism, are less skeptical
| when exposed to information on the reality and urgency of climate
| change.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------


> If you hate the government as much as some appear to do
> then you should get off the Internet which a Left politician and
> Global warming advocate wrote the bill to finance the original
> concepts.  So according to your lights, dim though i find them,
> the net is likely a conspiracy to control your discourse.
> 
> As a matter of fact I would prefer to believe your
> bad ideas but G*d never granted me the gift of belief.  So
> I have to go with reported facts and observations.
> 
> Selah!
> 
> bliss
> 
> 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 7:06:27 PM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:

> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
> man-made global warming nonsense, either.

During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
more about politics and less about science. 

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
"Interesting, the trousers conceal a tiny secondary horn."
  -Lrrr
0
Wildman
9/14/2015 7:09:07 PM
On 9/14/15, 11:20 AM, in article
P-udnTGzWeyVjWrInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 02:28, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> Correlation is not causation, and when correlation breaks down as
>>> comprehensively as it does, causation cannot be preserved, except by
>>> lying and manipulating the data in a disgraceful way, which is what is
>>> being pursued to save some academic careers and government funding.
>> 
>> Unsupported nonsense which is not backed by evidence. OK, that is what you
>> accept.
>> 
>> I will accept the science.
>> 
> 
> on this specific issue, here's some science:
> 
> http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm1046course/solubility.html

Does not mention "climate" at all.

> For temperatures between ~34F and ~160F, as temperature increases, the
> solubility of CO2 in the water decreases.  Example, soda goes flat as it
> warms up.
> 
> If CO2 were to be measured in the vicinity of a warming ocean, you would
> detect increased levels.  This correlates higher CO2 with higher
> temperatures.  It's actual science.

Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.

> HOWEVER, to draw the conclusion that the CO2 itself is responsible for
> the warmer ocean is FALSE.  CO2, in fact, does not absorbe infrared
> energy above about -50F in any significant amount to CREATE any
> greenhouse effect.  It would, however, help keep the planet out of an
> ice age.

Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.

> WATER VAPOR, on the other hand [something we cannot control], has a
> SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER absorption spectrum, extending WELL ABOVE freezing.
>  this is why cloudy nights are warm, cloudy days are cool.
> 
> the correlation of water vapor in clouds DOES correlate to temperature
> changes, and can be demonstrated using the IR absorption characteristics
> of water.
> 
> This is NOT the case with CO2.
> 
> So to make the assumption that CO2 causes warmer oceans (or warmer
> anything) because measured levels have gone UP due to warmer oceans, is
> FALSE, because there's no mechanism for CO2 to create the warmer
> temperatures.

We are not talking assumptions here... but things which have been modeled
and studied and researched.

> AND IF IT DID, you'd have a condition known as 'thermal runaway'.  But
> that would only happen in an UNSTABLE system.  'UNSTABLE system' can be
> demonstrated by balancing a ball on your nose.  It CAN be done, but you
> have to CONSTANTLY make deliberate adjustments.
> 
> A STABLE system is the opposite, in which any change is self-corrected.
>  In chemistry, this is typical of a system in EQULIBRIUM, which is in
> fact the case for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere vs CO2
> concentration in the oceans.
> 
> 
> Anwyay, there's your science.

You claim it is science but cannot point to a single scientific organization
which backs your view. Why do you think that is?



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 7:09:34 PM
Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> writes:

> Also CO2's primary absorption of IR energy is below -50F.  That's MINUS
> 50.  You know, COLD AS HELL.  So if temperature ever got BELOW -50F,
> we'd be REALLY HAPPY to have a CO2 blanket keeping it warmer.

The temp is below -50F every day all over the planet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature

(Really don't care about this pointless argument though,
I'd rather knock down a wall with my forehead.)

-- 
Dan Espen
0
Dan
9/14/2015 7:10:45 PM
On 09/14/15 10:40, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/14/15, 10:09 AM, in article
> D7WdnW-V2NH_YmvInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/15 09:32, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>
>> (regarding web sites and man-made global warming)
>>
>>> Why don't you name one? If you do I can pretty much assure you I will accept
>>> the basic ideas they show. I will also accept that the science is still
>>> growing and we are still learning and there are debates on details and
>>> different models which, while they are similar, make somewhat different
>>> predictions, etc.
>>
>> I have a nice web site on the subject.
>>
>> http://mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html
>>
>> lots of links.  lots of info.
>>
> 
> With links to places like Fox which has repeatedly been shown to be grossly
> inaccurate and dishonest on this issue.
> 
> Again: why not look at actual scientific sites. Do not expect me to give up
> the science and instead accept your push of a political agenda to socialize
> the costs and risks of the wealthy. I shall NEVER do that.

what?  'socialize the costs and risks of the wealthy'?  [I cannot see a
connection between what I say on my web page, "the actual science", done
personally by ME, and socializing the costs and risks of the wealthy.

If you're basing "man made global warming" on THAT, I'd say you've
become agenda-blind.  Further discussion would be pointless.  For in the
face of undisputable facts, which I happily present on the
aforementioned web page, you would make THAT claim instead?

> I am going to stick with the science and our best information.

heh, ok, whatever.


0
Big
9/14/2015 7:54:30 PM
On 09/14/15 12:09, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/14/15, 11:20 AM, in article
> P-udnTGzWeyVjWrInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/15 02:28, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>>> Correlation is not causation, and when correlation breaks down as
>>>> comprehensively as it does, causation cannot be preserved, except by
>>>> lying and manipulating the data in a disgraceful way, which is what is
>>>> being pursued to save some academic careers and government funding.
>>>
>>> Unsupported nonsense which is not backed by evidence. OK, that is what you
>>> accept.
>>>
>>> I will accept the science.
>>>
>>
>> on this specific issue, here's some science:
>>
>> http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm1046course/solubility.html
> 
> Does not mention "climate" at all.
> 
>> For temperatures between ~34F and ~160F, as temperature increases, the
>> solubility of CO2 in the water decreases.  Example, soda goes flat as it
>> warms up.
>>
>> If CO2 were to be measured in the vicinity of a warming ocean, you would
>> detect increased levels.  This correlates higher CO2 with higher
>> temperatures.  It's actual science.
> 
> Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.
> 
>> HOWEVER, to draw the conclusion that the CO2 itself is responsible for
>> the warmer ocean is FALSE.  CO2, in fact, does not absorbe infrared
>> energy above about -50F in any significant amount to CREATE any
>> greenhouse effect.  It would, however, help keep the planet out of an
>> ice age.
> 
> Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.

I just look at chemistry books and physics data.  that's usually
sufficient.  "organization" is overrated.

>> WATER VAPOR, on the other hand [something we cannot control], has a
>> SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER absorption spectrum, extending WELL ABOVE freezing.
>>  this is why cloudy nights are warm, cloudy days are cool.
>>
>> the correlation of water vapor in clouds DOES correlate to temperature
>> changes, and can be demonstrated using the IR absorption characteristics
>> of water.
>>
>> This is NOT the case with CO2.
>>
>> So to make the assumption that CO2 causes warmer oceans (or warmer
>> anything) because measured levels have gone UP due to warmer oceans, is
>> FALSE, because there's no mechanism for CO2 to create the warmer
>> temperatures.
> 
> We are not talking assumptions here... but things which have been modeled
> and studied and researched.

models can be faked and inaccurate.  studying bad models is what's
behing the whole "man made global warming" nonsense.  I did this
research myself, using "easily available" information.  links and data
on this web site:  mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html [it even has charts
and graphs!]

>> Anwyay, there's your science.
> 
> You claim it is science but cannot point to a single scientific organization
> which backs your view. Why do you think that is?

"scientific organization".  why must it be a "scientific organization"?
 Why can't you just look at the information yourself?  Don't you trust
your OWN eyes and your OWN intelligence?

why must some "scientific organization" do the thinking FOR you?

And if you want a 'scientific organization', how about the chemistry
department at any local university?  I'm sure that they could validate
my claims about CO2's infrared absorption spectrum and gas solubility in
water.


0
Big
9/14/2015 7:59:27 PM
On 9/14/15, 12:59 PM, in article
Z8-dndrsyuOrumrInZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

....
>> Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.
>> 
>>> HOWEVER, to draw the conclusion that the CO2 itself is responsible for
>>> the warmer ocean is FALSE.  CO2, in fact, does not absorbe infrared
>>> energy above about -50F in any significant amount to CREATE any
>>> greenhouse effect.  It would, however, help keep the planet out of an
>>> ice age.
>> 
>> Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.
> 
> I just look at chemistry books and physics data.  that's usually
> sufficient.  "organization" is overrated.

In other words you avoid the conclusions of actual scientific organizations
and instead are trying to re-create their findings, but do so with limited
knowledge and a pre-assumed conclusion that biases you.

OK. I can accept that. Just not what I prefer to do.

>>> WATER VAPOR, on the other hand [something we cannot control], has a
>>> SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER absorption spectrum, extending WELL ABOVE freezing.
>>>  this is why cloudy nights are warm, cloudy days are cool.
>>> 
>>> the correlation of water vapor in clouds DOES correlate to temperature
>>> changes, and can be demonstrated using the IR absorption characteristics
>>> of water.
>>> 
>>> This is NOT the case with CO2.
>>> 
>>> So to make the assumption that CO2 causes warmer oceans (or warmer
>>> anything) because measured levels have gone UP due to warmer oceans, is
>>> FALSE, because there's no mechanism for CO2 to create the warmer
>>> temperatures.
>> 
>> We are not talking assumptions here... but things which have been modeled
>> and studied and researched.
> 
> models can be faked and inaccurate.

Straw man.

> studying bad models is what's behing the whole "man made global warming"
> nonsense.  I did this research myself, using "easily available" information.
> links and data on this web site:  mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html [it even
> has charts and graphs!]

You have shown poor understanding of the science - and I was able to talk
about that when I am not an expert myself.

>>> Anwyay, there's your science.
>> 
>> You claim it is science but cannot point to a single scientific organization
>> which backs your view. Why do you think that is?
> 
> "scientific organization".  why must it be a "scientific organization"?

When we are talking about the science that is pretty important. Would you go
to a Muslim group to learn about Christians? I hope not! If you want to
learn about the science then go to the scientific organizations and the
actual scientific research!

> Why can't you just look at the information yourself?  Don't you trust
> your OWN eyes and your OWN intelligence?

Exactly what I am advocating.

> why must some "scientific organization" do the thinking FOR you?

LOL! Because I do not assume I am going to recreate the whole of human
knowledge myself! I accept relativity and Newtonian physics and quantum
physics - even though I know they are each limited and even contradict each
other. They are GREAT models that helps us to predict and control the world
very well. Without them we would not have things like color TV and GPS
systems. But I do not pretend to go back to the orginal research and be an
expert in each.

The bigger question is why do you pick one politicized topic where
conservatives work to deny the science to, well, deny the science?  What is
your goal and wish for people to not accept the science and the evidence?

What do you hope to gain. Only thing I can see is that it helps push the
right wing agenda to socialize costs and risks for the wealthy. If you are
not working to do that, then what is your goal?
 
> And if you want a 'scientific organization', how about the chemistry
> department at any local university?  I'm sure that they could validate
> my claims about CO2's infrared absorption spectrum and gas solubility in
> water.

See: you assume those are in contention but do not show any evidence they
are. Point to the scientific organization that DENIES these things.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 8:21:53 PM
On 9/14/15, 12:54 PM, in article
1-KdnQ38sqaQu2rInZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 10:40, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/14/15, 10:09 AM, in article
>> D7WdnW-V2NH_YmvInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/14/15 09:32, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> 
>>> (regarding web sites and man-made global warming)
>>> 
>>>> Why don't you name one? If you do I can pretty much assure you I will
>>>> accept
>>>> the basic ideas they show. I will also accept that the science is still
>>>> growing and we are still learning and there are debates on details and
>>>> different models which, while they are similar, make somewhat different
>>>> predictions, etc.
>>> 
>>> I have a nice web site on the subject.
>>> 
>>> http://mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html
>>> 
>>> lots of links.  lots of info.
>>> 
>> 
>> With links to places like Fox which has repeatedly been shown to be grossly
>> inaccurate and dishonest on this issue.
>> 
>> Again: why not look at actual scientific sites. Do not expect me to give up
>> the science and instead accept your push of a political agenda to socialize
>> the costs and risks of the wealthy. I shall NEVER do that.
> 
> what?  'socialize the costs and risks of the wealthy'?  [I cannot see a
> connection between what I say on my web page, "the actual science", done
> personally by ME, and socializing the costs and risks of the wealthy.
> 
> If you're basing "man made global warming" on THAT, I'd say you've
> become agenda-blind.  Further discussion would be pointless.  For in the
> face of undisputable facts, which I happily present on the
> aforementioned web page, you would make THAT claim instead?

Your site is not a scientific piece of work at all. Heck, I have downloaded
the text and can go through point by point and show where it is biased and
unscientific. I will have time later today... maybe I will do that for you.
Do I have your permission to post a response on a public server, using your
text? 

>> I am going to stick with the science and our best information.
> 
> heh, ok, whatever.
> 
> 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 8:23:09 PM
On 09/14/15 12:01, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/14/15, 11:12 AM, in article
> X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>>> want
>>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>>> to lie
>>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>>>
>>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>>>
>>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>>>
>>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
>>
>> correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
>> warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
>> years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
>> a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.
> 
> How is it suspicious looking? It fits very well within the predictions of
> the scientific models.
> 
> It is claims like this which show you are not familiar with the science.
> 
>>> This is the Big Lie of AGW advocates, that those who oppose it deny the
>>> warming. No one does. What they deny is the proof of causation by CO2.
>>
>> CO2 can't cause planetary warming.  but warming *DOES* cause increase in
>> CO2 levels!  
> 
> Can you find this claim from ANY scientific organization.

again with the "scientific organization" thing.  Why must some
"scientific organization" take the place of simple research and a
Chemistry 101 class?

>> On my global warming web page I went into detail about how water has
>> about 100 times the effect as CO2 on global temperatures.
> 
> Can you show a single model that suggests otherwise? Again, I bet not. When
> you make claims such as this you are demonstrating how you do not understand
> the science.

ha ha ha!  that's funny!  Right, I don't "understand".  That means
DISAGREE WITH YOU, right?  I love it when people say "you do not
understand" to people who DISAGREE.  It reflects a considerable
ARROGANCE, because "not understand" implies some kind of intellectual
deficiency.

I think it is *clearly* obvious to the most *casual* observer that I'm
right.  To suggest that I am not, means that YOU do not "understand" the
significance of things like:

a) solubility rules
b) basic chemistry
c) equilibrium reactions
d) infrared absorption spectra
e) heat transfer by radiation

FYI - I used to operate nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy.  That
program has a high drop-out rate.  It requires significant knowledge of
math, nuclear physics, chemistry, basic metalurgy, and heat transfer
systems.  I can do my OWN research, thank you very much, and don't need
an "organization".

http://www.navy.com/careers/nuclear-power.html
(yeah, it's a recruiting site)

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navy/l/blnukeschool.htm


just putting things into perspective...

0
Big
9/14/2015 8:32:22 PM
On 9/14/15, 1:32 PM, in article
0pydnZFlEeZws2rInZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

....
>>>> This is the Big Lie of AGW advocates, that those who oppose it deny the
>>>> warming. No one does. What they deny is the proof of causation by CO2.
>>> 
>>> CO2 can't cause planetary warming.  but warming *DOES* cause increase in
>>> CO2 levels!  
>> 
>> Can you find this claim from ANY scientific organization.
> 
> again with the "scientific organization" thing.  Why must some
> "scientific organization" take the place of simple research and a
> Chemistry 101 class?

Straw man. Nobody is saying they should. But you look at this chemistry data
and assume, with no evidence, that it is contrary to what the scientists in
these organizations claim based on your own limited understanding of what
they say.

But I think we are not getting to a point of understanding: you realize none
of what you say is going to be backed by any scientific organization. You
think you have found something they have all missed. Which is weird because
you never show an example of where they deny any scientific finding.

So they missed something you found... but you cannot show where they missed
it.

Not a very reasonable conclusion. Far, far more likely they have found it
and included it in their models. No offense, but you give no reason to trust
in any way that you found something that some of the greatest scientific
minds and organizations have all missed.

>>> On my global warming web page I went into detail about how water has
>>> about 100 times the effect as CO2 on global temperatures.
>> 
>> Can you show a single model that suggests otherwise? Again, I bet not. When
>> you make claims such as this you are demonstrating how you do not understand
>> the science.
> 
> ha ha ha!  that's funny!  Right, I don't "understand".  That means
> DISAGREE WITH YOU, right?

Incorrect. I asked a specific question about a single model that suggests
otherwise. I said nothing about agreement with ME, but about you backing the
idea that the models do not account for what you speak of.

And the count of such models: zero.

You have not found a single model that does not account for the effects of
water vapor but then deem them wrong for not doing so.

> I love it when people say "you do not
> understand" to people who DISAGREE.  It reflects a considerable
> ARROGANCE, because "not understand" implies some kind of intellectual
> deficiency.

Keep in mind I said nothing of the sort.

> I think it is *clearly* obvious to the most *casual* observer that I'm
> right.

About what? You have not even named the model you think does not account for
water vapor, but then says accounting for water vapor shows the models to be
wrong! 

> To suggest that I am not, means that YOU do not "understand" the
> significance of things like:
> 
> a) solubility rules
> b) basic chemistry
> c) equilibrium reactions
> d) infrared absorption spectra
> e) heat transfer by radiation

Again: no sign of any major model not taking those into consideration.

And if you cannot show that you have no point.

> FYI - I used to operate nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy.  That
> program has a high drop-out rate.  It requires significant knowledge of
> math, nuclear physics, chemistry, basic metalurgy, and heat transfer
> systems.  I can do my OWN research, thank you very much, and don't need
> an "organization".
> 
> http://www.navy.com/careers/nuclear-power.html
> (yeah, it's a recruiting site)
> 
> http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navy/l/blnukeschool.htm
> 
> 
> just putting things into perspective...

You are explaining why you should know better than to make the claims you
have. OK. So why make them when you have the background to know better?



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 8:46:35 PM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:37:49 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>You asked me to do some Googling for you to help you find something,

  No.  I did no such thing, you retarded piece of shit.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/14/2015 8:58:28 PM
On 9/14/15, 1:58 PM, in article t6devadd0jq5kbhtm6tld4vitd535udk7c@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:37:49 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> You asked me to do some Googling for you to help you find something,
> 
>   No.  I did no such thing, you retarded piece of shit.

And now you deny you asked me to Google things for you. Not much can do but
to quote your own words back at you:
    -----
    Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar" or "hi
    res atmospheric imaging assembly"
    -----

Those are your words, asking me to Google things for you. You never did say
what you hoped I would help you find.

I do see, though, you have worked to move goal posts from your anti-science
position to insults and accusations designed to put me on the defensive.
Would be better if you actually tried to defend your position - but it is
clear now even you know you cannot.

And I am fine with that. I am not asking anything of you at all.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:12:59 PM
On 9/14/15, 11:52 AM, in article
a4qdnaUc7efwimrInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
<best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:20:32 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/15 02:28, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>>> Correlation is not causation, and when correlation breaks down as
>>>> comprehensively as it does, causation cannot be preserved, except by
>>>> lying and manipulating the data in a disgraceful way, which is what is
>>>> being pursued to save some academic careers and government funding.
>>> 
>>> Unsupported nonsense which is not backed by evidence. OK, that is what you
>>> accept.
>>> 
>>> I will accept the science.
>>> 
>> 
>> HOWEVER, to draw the conclusion that the CO2 itself is responsible for
>> the warmer ocean is FALSE.
> 
> I remember reading a synopsis of a study that was done
> on ice cores from Antarctica.  The goal was to show a
> correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the
> past.  They found the correlation but it was not what
> they were expecting (hoping?).  They found that a rise
> in temperature *preceded* a rise in CO2, not the other
> way around.  FALSE indeed.

One: why not show the study?
Two: using ONE study to try to debunk a major area of science is a bit
silly. It would be like a study that was never replicated showing that the
strength of gravity is not correlated with the square of the distance. One
study would not disprove the mass of evidence.

> Snit:  No I don't have a link.  I'm sure your search
> engine works as well as mine.

So it is based on your recollection of something you cannot even show. Not a
very powerful argument.

I suspect you are in reference to an effect believed to be tied to
Milankovitch cycles, but without you being more specific it is hard to say.
If so, be aware these are not contrary to the science but a part of it. More
on it here: 

<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/>




-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 9:26:16 PM
On 2015-09-12, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>
>>> Save the planet?
>
> 	You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.

   That's not really "saving the planet". The planet will do just fine
without us, and possibly better. If we leave any holes in the ecosystem,
they will be plugged without any help from us so long as we aren't around
to sabotage the effort.

   Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found it or
how we left it is also equally insignificant.

[deletia]

   Humanity just likes to pretend it's the center of the universe.
0
JEDIDIAH
9/14/2015 9:54:47 PM
On 2015-09-14, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

[Re: Faux News]

> Really, when evidence suggests watching no news at all, or Comedy Central,
> leads to being better informed than a "news" station it might not be wise to
> refer to them as news station at all.

I think a better word is "propaganda".

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
0
Charlie
9/14/2015 10:50:11 PM
In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>> want
>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>> to lie
>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>> 
>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>> 
>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>> 
>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
>
>correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
>warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
>years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
>a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.

Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf. 
It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with 
references, and much myth debunking). 

When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and 
reason. :)

Thanks











>> This is the Big Lie of AGW advocates, that those who oppose it deny the
>> warming. No one does. What they deny is the proof of causation by CO2.
>
>CO2 can't cause planetary warming.  but warming *DOES* cause increase in
>CO2 levels!  This is the same reason that sodas go flat when you let
>them warm up.  A physical property of water, its ability to have
>dissolved gasses in it, decreases with temperature from 34F to about 160F.
>
>So if the ocean is at equilibrium, if you warm it, the CO2 will
>effervesce from the depths, and CO2 levels measured in the vicinity of
>the warmer ocean water will be elevated.
>
>elevating CO2, on the other hand, would promote RAIN, as water vapor has
>an affinity for CO2 absorption, and the rain would deplete the CO2 [and
>probably not affect temperature much].
>
>On my global warming web page I went into detail about how water has
>about 100 times the effect as CO2 on global temperatures.  I don't hear
>ANYONE griping about how much WATER VAPOR is in the atmosphere.  there
>is certainly a LOT MORE of it than CO2.
>
>Also CO2's primary absorption of IR energy is below -50F.  That's MINUS
>50.  You know, COLD AS HELL.  So if temperature ever got BELOW -50F,
>we'd be REALLY HAPPY to have a CO2 blanket keeping it warmer.
>
>> Correlation is not causation
>
>exactly!
>
>> Just about every prediction made by the alarmists has turned out to be
>> false.
>
>that's why I'm glad they didn't get their legislative way at the
>beginning of the century, because they'd be taking credit for the
>LOWERING OF TEMPERATURES that's happening *RIGHT* *NOW* - "see, it's
>working, we need to do MORE!"  that was a predictable situation.
>
>> No one has any CLUE as to what really dominates the climate in terms of
>> feedback systems and drivers, external or internal.
>
>I think it's a combination of solar cycles driven by the gravitational
>pull of the planets in relation to the earth's position, because tidal
>bulges would affect solar output due to localized changes in the
>macroscopic cross section for fusion, coupled with localized changes in
>the density of the sun.  Note there would be a delayed effect, as it
>takes time for photons generated in the core from fusion to reach the
>surface of the sun.  The exact value is probably not known, particularly
>if it's "in flux" due to constantly moving tidal bulges and surface
>activity on the sun.
>
>But I bet you could do a series of discrete fourier transforms and
>discover the actual relationships...
>
>[I did some DFT analysis on publically available world temperature data
>from U.C. Berkeley, that covers 200 years or so, to come up with some of
>my own conclusions, particularly the 70 year cycles]
>
>
0
noydb
9/14/2015 10:50:27 PM
On 09/14/15 12:09, Wildman so wittily quipped:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> 
>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
> 
> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
> more about politics and less about science. 
> 

the TRUE weather experts seem to be in agreement!


0
Big
9/14/2015 11:25:15 PM
On 9/14/15, 12:10 PM, in article mt7605$imc$2@dont-email.me, "Dan Espen"
<despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> writes:
> 
>> Also CO2's primary absorption of IR energy is below -50F.  That's MINUS
>> 50.  You know, COLD AS HELL.  So if temperature ever got BELOW -50F,
>> we'd be REALLY HAPPY to have a CO2 blanket keeping it warmer.
> 
> The temp is below -50F every day all over the planet:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature
> 
> (Really don't care about this pointless argument though,
> I'd rather knock down a wall with my forehead.)

Really comes down to if you want to:

A) Accept the scientific view.
B) Accept the view pushed by conservatives who are looking to
   socialize costs and risks for the wealthy.

To pretend there is a big scientific question on the BASICS of this is a
lie: man-made global climate change is well accept and respected science.
People might as well be denying relativity, quantum physics, or Newton's
laws. They can do so but let us not pretend they are being anything other
than fooled by Fox and the like.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 11:42:58 PM
On 9/14/15, 12:09 PM, in article
a4qdnaQc7efOhmrInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
<best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> 
>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
> 
> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
> more about politics and less about science.

The data... go to any scientific site on it. Or go to Google Scholar.

It is not like there is a scientific debate on the basics. To pretend
otherwise is a lie.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 11:43:38 PM
On 9/14/15, 12:05 PM, in article 20150914140623@news.eternal-september.org,
"Roger Blake" <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2015-09-14, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> no, not "every single one".  In fact, there are some significant "man
>> made climate change disagreers" out there.
> 
> Also don't forget what the late Reid Bryson, the professor who is widely
> regarded as the father of modern climate science, had to say about it:
> 
>   
> https://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/global-warming-is-a-bunch-of-hooey-l
> egendary-professor-of-scientific-climatology/
> 
> Interestingly all of this is not really new. In the early 1950s, a
> time when many feared that A-bombs were responsible for changing the
> earth's climate, Eric Sloane (an early conservationist and the first TV
> weatherman), stated the following:
> 
>   "There's little doubt about our changing climate. The fierce winters
>    of yesterday are disappearing, tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming
>    more vicious, and weather trends aren't 'trends' any more. They can't
>    be depended upon. Just about anything can happen -- and does."
> 
> Sound familiar? Sloane continues:
> 
>   "If you are one of the many who wonder if the A-Bomb is responsible
>    for our queer weather, you can forget it. It isn't so. What is the
>    answer? It's simply that we are riding on the tail end of a glacial
>    age and our climate is shifting."
> 
>   "...as a matter of fact the polar icecaps are already receding at the
>    rate of 500 feet a year, causing climactic changes and raising the level
>    of the sea about an inch during the last century. This is a sign of things
>    to come."
> 
> More familiar-sounding ideas? However, Sloane continues:
> 
>   "The glaciers and ice reservoirs began their retreat about 20,000 years
>    ago and by 5000 B.C. the weather had become much milder. ... After the
>    12th century however, the weather cycle swung low and the climate became
>    more severe. Winters became longer and the glaciers reached their
>    maximum during the 'Little Ice Age' from 1650 to 1850.' Since 1850
>    the glaciers have been retreating under a climate of shorter winters
>    and warmer summers."
> 
> (Eric Sloane quotes are from the September, 1953 edition of Mechanix
> Illustrated magazine for anyone who wants to check them out.)
> 
> What's of interest here is that over 60 years ago, people were concerned
> about climate change and thought that human activity (in this case,
> A-Bombs) was the cause.  However we also have here a meterologist,
> probably the most well-known of his time, acknowledging the climactic
> changes but showing them to be as a result of natural cycles. (A-bomb
> testing was ultimately halted, but not due to climate concerns.)
> 
> As an aside, since these effects were seen in 1953 that suggests that the
> Warmists would have to have CO2 emissions reduced to pre-1953 levels in order
> to "stabilize" the climate. How feasible is that going to be? What effects
> will that have on our civilization? Are the crisis-mongers reducing their
> own "carbon footprints" to pre-1953 levels?
> 
> One of the few advantages to being old is being able to recognize when
> history is repeating itself. The main difference is that in the 1950s the
> human-caused climate change idea had not been sufficiently developed to
> the point where it could be used a a tool for the political aquisition
> of power and wealth, so it faded away.
> 
> What the "climate change" argument really is about is central management
> of all aspects of our lives by a motley crew of control freaks. Having
> been involved in the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s myself
> I know the motives of that lot from personal experience.  To really
> understand the phenomenon you have to follow the the flow of power and
> money. The science has been hopelessly corrupted by political influence.
> 
> Much like the "scientific studies" made by the tobacco companies showing
> that cigarettes were safe, the people paying the bills will usually get
> the results that they want:
> 
>   http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/
> 
> When it comes to "Global Warming/Climate Change," governments and the
> U.N. want it and they want it bad.
> 
> (You'll never convince the True Believers of course, they are an army
> of useful idiots for the power brokers.)

You will never convince people who believe in science and the scientific
method to accept denial of science. Yeah, likely true.

By the way: it is the oil industry and those who profit from it who push the
anti-science you accept. YOU are the one buying into the corporate nonsense
that you warn against.

Those of us who accept the science note you should INSTEAD look to
scientific organizations around the globe.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/14/2015 11:45:35 PM
On 09/14/2015 02:54 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2015-09-12, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2015 10:10 AM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>> On 09/12/15 02:29, mechanic so wittily quipped:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:52:59 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gasoline is "liquid freedom" to go where I want, when I want.
>>>>> guess what restricting/taxing/punishing/controlling its use does?
>>>>
>>>> Save the planet?
>>
>> 	You strangely are correct BBB but how about leaving the planet
>> in a state where the future human species has a chance to survive not to
>> mention all the creatures that uphold our lives.
>
>     That's not really "saving the planet". The planet will do just fine
> without us, and possibly better. If we leave any holes in the ecosystem,
> they will be plugged without any help from us so long as we aren't around
> to sabotage the effort.
>
>     Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found it or
> how we left it is also equally insignificant.
>
> [deletia]
>
>     Humanity just likes to pretend it's the center of the universe.
>


	Until we become aware of extra-solar species of equal ego size
to humanity we should treat the Earth as a unique habitat and our selves
ans the most important species as long as we are among the other species 
in the habitat,  We should try to keep them with us whether for
food or amusement.  Even the clams and tube worms.

	There may not arise another equilibrium point on earth that includes 
big-brained speculative lookers at the sky.
	And what if our time on Earth is short, that merely makes it
more valuable in that we are looking around and trying to figure
out for the Universe just what it is doing.

	bliss
0
Bobbie
9/14/2015 11:52:12 PM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>  Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found it or
> how we left it is also equally insignificant.

"...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Wait, wait, I'm not done yet!
	Cybe R. Wizard
0
Cybe
9/14/2015 11:59:48 PM
On 9/14/15, 3:50 PM, in article mt7mci$ujf$3@dont-email.me, "Bruce Sinclair"
<noydb@no.way> wrote:

> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>>> want
>>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>>> to lie
>>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>>> 
>>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>>> 
>>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>>> 
>>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
>> 
>> correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
>> warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
>> years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
>> a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.
> 
> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf.
> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with
> references, and much myth debunking).
> 
> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and
> reason. :)
> 
> Thanks

Is it in basic agreement with the science or another book trying to debunk
the science? If it is trying to debunk it, has the author also tried to
debunk Newton's laws? If not, why do you think so many people pick this area
of science to deny when it is so well established?

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 12:02:53 AM
On 9/14/15, 4:25 PM, in article
3vadnfLubKjvymrInZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 12:09, Wildman so wittily quipped:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>> 
>>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>> 
>> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
>> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
>> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
>> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
>> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
>> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
>> more about politics and less about science.
>> 
> 
> the TRUE weather experts seem to be in agreement!
> 
> 
Correct: the actual experts in the field are in very large agreement.
Depending on whom you deem an expert, the percentages range from about 95%
to 99%+ supporting the idea that man-made global climate change is real.

It is a shame that Fox and other sources push disinformation which leads the
uneducated to be confused on the issue.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 12:44:00 AM
On 09/14/15 13:21, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/14/15, 12:59 PM, in article
> Z8-dndrsyuOrumrInZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
> ...
>>> Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.
>>>
>>>> HOWEVER, to draw the conclusion that the CO2 itself is responsible for
>>>> the warmer ocean is FALSE.  CO2, in fact, does not absorbe infrared
>>>> energy above about -50F in any significant amount to CREATE any
>>>> greenhouse effect.  It would, however, help keep the planet out of an
>>>> ice age.
>>>
>>> Please point to a scientific organization which backs your claim.
>>
>> I just look at chemistry books and physics data.  that's usually
>> sufficient.  "organization" is overrated.
> 
> In other words you avoid the conclusions of actual scientific organizations
> and instead are trying to re-create their findings, but do so with limited
> knowledge and a pre-assumed conclusion that biases you.
> 
> OK. I can accept that. Just not what I prefer to do.
> 
>>>> WATER VAPOR, on the other hand [something we cannot control], has a
>>>> SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER absorption spectrum, extending WELL ABOVE freezing.
>>>>  this is why cloudy nights are warm, cloudy days are cool.
>>>>
>>>> the correlation of water vapor in clouds DOES correlate to temperature
>>>> changes, and can be demonstrated using the IR absorption characteristics
>>>> of water.
>>>>
>>>> This is NOT the case with CO2.
>>>>
>>>> So to make the assumption that CO2 causes warmer oceans (or warmer
>>>> anything) because measured levels have gone UP due to warmer oceans, is
>>>> FALSE, because there's no mechanism for CO2 to create the warmer
>>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>> We are not talking assumptions here... but things which have been modeled
>>> and studied and researched.
>>
>> models can be faked and inaccurate.
> 
> Straw man.
> 
>> studying bad models is what's behing the whole "man made global warming"
>> nonsense.  I did this research myself, using "easily available" information.
>> links and data on this web site:  mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html [it even
>> has charts and graphs!]
> 
> You have shown poor understanding of the science - and I was able to talk
> about that when I am not an expert myself.
> 
>>>> Anwyay, there's your science.
>>>
>>> You claim it is science but cannot point to a single scientific organization
>>> which backs your view. Why do you think that is?
>>
>> "scientific organization".  why must it be a "scientific organization"?
> 
> When we are talking about the science that is pretty important. Would you go
> to a Muslim group to learn about Christians? I hope not! If you want to
> learn about the science then go to the scientific organizations and the
> actual scientific research!
> 
>> Why can't you just look at the information yourself?  Don't you trust
>> your OWN eyes and your OWN intelligence?
> 
> Exactly what I am advocating.

uh, no.  you appear to be advocating "scientific organizations" in
general, as if they're naturally superior to individual study.

>> why must some "scientific organization" do the thinking FOR you?
> 
> LOL! Because I do not assume I am going to recreate the whole of human
> knowledge myself!

why not?


> I accept relativity and Newtonian physics and quantum physics

good for you!


> even though I know they are each limited and even contradict each
> other.

not exactly, but whatever.


> They are GREAT models that helps us to predict and control the world
> very well. Without them we would not have things like color TV and GPS
> systems. But I do not pretend to go back to the orginal research and be an
> expert in each.

why not?  you assume that others can't do this, because you chose NOT to?

> The bigger question is why do you pick one politicized topic where
> conservatives work to deny the science to, well, deny the science?

no no no.  NOT denying science.  That's the point.  You just don't want
to believe it, that's all.

> What is your goal and wish for people to not accept the science and the evidence?

sorry, leading question.  I don't wish for people NOT to accept science.
 YOUR version of the science, apparently, is incorrect, so I don't want
incorrect conclusions and theories to be accepted, PARTICULARLY if
politicians and activists try to use it to CONTROL ME and PREVENT ME
from doing things I want to do, when they're *WRONG* and it's NONE OF
THEIR GODDAMNED BUSINESS how *I* run *MY* life.

pretty much THAT.

> What do you hope to gain.

debunk the "chicken littles", expose their evil plans, and RETAIN MY
FREEDOM, DAMMIT!  [and everyone else's while I'm at it].  Something like
THAT.

> Only thing I can see is that it helps push the
> right wing agenda to socialize costs and risks for the wealthy. If you are
> not working to do that, then what is your goal?

I don't want to socialize ANYTHING.  Socialism, in all of its forms, is
evil, unfair, and causes NOTHING but problems.  Only "the elite" win,
and everyone else gets dragged down by it.  It's a way of keeping people
trying to BECOME "the rich" from entering the 'rich boy' club.

>> And if you want a 'scientific organization', how about the chemistry
>> department at any local university?  I'm sure that they could validate
>> my claims about CO2's infrared absorption spectrum and gas solubility in
>> water.
> 
> See: you assume those are in contention but do not show any evidence they
> are. Point to the scientific organization that DENIES these things.

how about the organization known as *ME* ?


0
Big
9/15/2015 1:01:21 AM
On 9/14/15, 6:01 PM, in article
vLudncU8S6Rl8GrInZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

....
>>> Why can't you just look at the information yourself?  Don't you trust
>>> your OWN eyes and your OWN intelligence?
>> 
>> Exactly what I am advocating.
> 
> uh, no.  you appear to be advocating "scientific organizations" in
> general, as if they're naturally superior to individual study.

If I want to know about quantum mechanics, I would go to a scientific site
that discusses it and learn. I would also read books on the topic and look
at specific research papers. And, given that I have done this, I would still
be left with a lot of ignorance on the topic but would at least understand
some of the basics.

Same with climate change science. I would not go to people such as yourself
who deny the science to try to understand the science. I do look to people
such as yourself to understand why people deny science.

You have not talked much about this... other than to suggest you have found
some facts the scientists have missed, but then you have failed to show that
they missed them (for example pointing to models that do not take a
significant variable into account).

>>> why must some "scientific organization" do the thinking FOR you?
>> 
>> LOL! Because I do not assume I am going to recreate the whole of human
>> knowledge myself!
> 
> why not?

No one person can do this. We all stand on the shoulders of others.

>> I accept relativity and Newtonian physics and quantum physics
> 
> good for you!

Can you? I have done research on each but am not an expert in any of those
ares.
 
>> even though I know they are each limited and even contradict each
>> other.
> 
> not exactly, but whatever.

Well, pretty much exactly. :)
 
>> They are GREAT models that helps us to predict and control the world
>> very well. Without them we would not have things like color TV and GPS
>> systems. But I do not pretend to go back to the orginal research and be an
>> expert in each.
> 
> why not?  you assume that others can't do this, because you chose NOT to?

I have looked at some research and read on them, but I do not have the math
background not time / interest to be an expert in each of these. So be it.

I still trust the models are very powerful.

>> The bigger question is why do you pick one politicized topic where
>> conservatives work to deny the science to, well, deny the science?
> 
> no no no.  NOT denying science.  That's the point.  You just don't want
> to believe it, that's all.

So you accept what the scientific sites are saying - what the science itself
says. Your claims to not accept these things was a joke?

No.

You need to make up your mind here: either you accept the general claim of
the scientific organizations (accept the science) or you do not (you reject
the science). Which is it?

>> What is your goal and wish for people to not accept the science and the
>> evidence?
> 
> sorry, leading question.  I don't wish for people NOT to accept science.
>  YOUR version of the science, apparently, is incorrect, so I don't want
> incorrect conclusions and theories to be accepted, PARTICULARLY if
> politicians and activists try to use it to CONTROL ME and PREVENT ME
> from doing things I want to do, when they're *WRONG* and it's NONE OF
> THEIR GODDAMNED BUSINESS how *I* run *MY* life.
> 
> pretty much THAT.

You speak of "my" version of the science... when it is already established I
am referencing the established scientific knowledge.

>> What do you hope to gain.
> 
> debunk the "chicken littles", expose their evil plans, and RETAIN MY
> FREEDOM, DAMMIT!  [and everyone else's while I'm at it].  Something like
> THAT.

So if you want to debunk some "chicken littles" why not use scientific sites
and organizations to do so? Or are you back to denying the science?

Again: you keep going back and forth on this. On one hand you claim to
accept the science, then you mock the science as "chicken little" thinking.

Pick one... unless you are OK with having internally inconsistent views. But
if you take that option do not expect others to take you seriously.

It would be like me saying I accept math but think 2+2=5.

When asked why I say because of the equals sign. See, math sites fail to
consider that.

That, of course, is nonsense - but you keep saying scientists are ignoring
things you give no reason to think they have ignored. Exact same idea.

>> Only thing I can see is that it helps push the
>> right wing agenda to socialize costs and risks for the wealthy. If you are
>> not working to do that, then what is your goal?
> 
> I don't want to socialize ANYTHING.  Socialism, in all of its forms, is
> evil, unfair, and causes NOTHING but problems.  Only "the elite" win,
> and everyone else gets dragged down by it.  It's a way of keeping people
> trying to BECOME "the rich" from entering the 'rich boy' club.

Yet you have bought into a world view pushed by those who wish to deny
science to back the socializing of the costs and risks of the rich.

Let us test to see if you do or do not back this:

* If Company X is is causing harm that leads to massive costs to society
through their CO2 emissions, who should pay: the Company X or society as a
whole?

I say Company X should pay for their own costs and risks. Your anti-science
agenda, though, implies we should ignore the costs and risks and have others
pay.

So where do you stand?

>>> And if you want a 'scientific organization', how about the chemistry
>>> department at any local university?  I'm sure that they could validate
>>> my claims about CO2's infrared absorption spectrum and gas solubility in
>>> water.
>> 
>> See: you assume those are in contention but do not show any evidence they
>> are. Point to the scientific organization that DENIES these things.
> 
> how about the organization known as *ME* ?

Huh? You deny the very things you are saying scientists are denying but you
are pointing out. That does not even make sense. If you deny them why would
you insist it is wrong for others to do so? But, keep in mind, there is no
reason to think they are denying what you claim.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 1:22:15 AM
On 09/14/15 13:46, Snit so wittily quipped:
> No offense, but you give no reason to trust
> in any way that you found something that some of the greatest scientific
> minds and organizations have all missed.

yeah, yeah, heard THIS kind of thing before, THEY are all SO smart, and
I can't possibly compare to their brilliance, yotta yotta yotta.

those are the discouraging words of someone who's afraid to try HIMSELF.
 I've known people who do that ALL of the time.  THEY are all
'whatever'.  THEY have 'whatever'  YOU can't POSSIBLY compete.  Blah
blah blah.  It's not worth doing/trying/saying/studying/whatever.

I reject all of it.  These are the words that LOSERS use.  Why do I say
LOSERS?  Because these people say that to THEMSELVES!  It's how they
justify NOT being one of the WINNERS, ya know?

Sorry, but it's true.  Maybe you'll see it, maybe you won't.  I've gone
my entire life hearing things like this, from one person or another.
It's gotten to the point where it's SO easy to recognize.  And SO
irritating.  "Yeah, yeah, don't bother trying.  Thanks for throwing
water on my fires of passion and enthusiasm."


NOW I finally get where you're coming from.  It's really _NOT_ a very
good place.


I suggest you try THINKING FOR YOURSELF.  Don't just accept what "they"
say just because "they" are a "scientific organization".  Run the
numbers yourself.  Do a DFT on the worldwide temperature data, for
example, to see what the trends REALLY are.  I did.  Got it from U.C.
Berkeley a while back.  You should use normalized data, but not 'cooked'
nor 'averaged'.  That filters out too much information.

the data should be findable from here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

What I find fun is how they started in 1750 [remember how I said it was
a COLD PERIOD in the 500 year cycle?] and then showed how world
temperatures went up by 1.5 deg C from then to 2000 [ok that's totally
true, that is!].  what they did NOT show is temperatures from 1500 to
1750.  that would've DROPPED by a similar amount!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

the 'tree ring' curve (cyan) is probably the best one.  It seems to be a
bit more reasonable, and clearly shows the ~500 cycles.  It also
includes ONLY the northern hemisphere, and no surprise, location might
actually determine how long the cycles REALLY are.  regardless, the
depth between 'Medieval Warm' and "little ice age" is only 0.8 deg.  The
height of 2004 according to the 'worst case' line is only 0.4 deg above
the zero point (Medieval Warm) which isn't all that significant if you
ask me.

THIS one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

shows 12,000 years of variations.  Funny, it was WAY warmer 8000 years
ago.  Not a lot of CARS burning GASOLINE back then.

it's also a very "bumpy" curve, suggesting a lot of cyclic variations
creating it.  yeah, you can see it just looking at the thing.

anyway, no alarmism there.  not even close.




In the best classes I've taken, we'd re-do the basic proofs of things we
normally accept for granted.  You know, like a physics class where you
derive "e=m * c^2" so you can follow Einstein's logic.  It should be a
stepping stone into deriving your OWN equations.  And why not?  I say GO
for it.  It's where REAL innovation begins...





[/me doing 'the impossible', every day, before breakfast]

0
Big
9/15/2015 1:29:37 AM
On 09/14/15 16:42, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/14/15, 12:10 PM, in article mt7605$imc$2@dont-email.me, "Dan Espen"
> <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> writes:
>>
>>> Also CO2's primary absorption of IR energy is below -50F.  That's MINUS
>>> 50.  You know, COLD AS HELL.  So if temperature ever got BELOW -50F,
>>> we'd be REALLY HAPPY to have a CO2 blanket keeping it warmer.
>>
>> The temp is below -50F every day all over the planet:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature
>>
>> (Really don't care about this pointless argument though,
>> I'd rather knock down a wall with my forehead.)
> 
> Really comes down to if you want to:
> 
> A) Accept the scientific view.
> B) Accept the view pushed by conservatives who are looking to
>    socialize costs and risks for the wealthy.

yeah, nothing pejorative there.  *sigh*

OK *you* can either accept the SCIENTIFIC VIEW (as i show on my own web
page) or *YOU* can accept what the COMMUNIST LIBERAL LEFTY SOCIALISTS
are shoving down our throats in the name of SCIENCE in order to CONTROL
everybody and make us all nothing but "bricks in the wall" as part of
their evil 'progressive' plan.


Ok why is MY logic NOT like yours?

once you're past the pejorative "My science is better than your science"
terminologies, we could actually discuss this.

So I'm stopping now.  I gave you really good wikipedia commons links for
charts showing global temperature analyses of various types, including
the 12,000 year chart that shows that 8000 years ago, temperatures were
WARMER.  there are a lot of visible cycles in that chart as well.  A
fourier analysis on THAT data could prove to be VERY interesting.


0
Big
9/15/2015 1:37:16 AM
On 09/14/15 15:50, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>>> want
>>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>>> to lie
>>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>>>
>>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>>>
>>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>>>
>>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
>>
>> correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
>> warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
>> years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
>> a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.
> 
> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf. 
> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with 
> references, and much myth debunking). 
> 
> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and 
> reason. :)

if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.


0
Big
9/15/2015 1:38:24 AM
On 09/14/15 17:02, Snit so wittily quipped:
> why do you think so many people pick this area
> of science to deny when it is so well established?
> 

it's because of the POLITICAL AGENDAS behind "what to do about it."

a) increase taxes

b) make it more expensive to live comfortably

c) tax the USA more than the rest of the world (KYOTO protocol)

d) do severe damage to the economy.  The economy runs on 'cheap energy'
to do EVERYTHING.  increase the price of energy, EVERYTHING becomes more
expensive.

e) reduce our freedom to travel by making it AS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE


this only spells one thing:  ANTI-FREEDOM.


no thank you.



0
Big
9/15/2015 1:41:38 AM
On 09/14/15 16:43, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/14/15, 12:09 PM, in article
> a4qdnaQc7efOhmrInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
> <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>
>>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>>
>> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
>> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
>> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
>> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
>> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
>> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
>> more about politics and less about science.
> 
> The data... go to any scientific site on it. Or go to Google Scholar.
> 
> It is not like there is a scientific debate on the basics. To pretend
> otherwise is a lie.
> 
> 

uh, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO, does NOT make that true... it's like your
"anti-science" claims, regarding what "climate change debunkers" say.

I'm starting to see you more as an alarmist, and less as a scientist.

If I have data that proves there's no "man made climate change", would
you accept it?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

it was warmer 8000 years ago!  no cars back then.  no factories.  no
coal burning.  nothing even remotely similar.  And human populations
were pretty small, too.

Unless it was MAMMOTH FARTS causing it!

( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha )


0
Big
9/15/2015 1:45:48 AM
On 9/14/15, 6:29 PM, in article
4JCdnR1_7vkE6WrInZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 13:46, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> No offense, but you give no reason to trust in any way that you found
>> something that some of the greatest scientific minds and organizations have
>> all missed.
> 
> yeah, yeah, heard THIS kind of thing before, THEY are all SO smart, and
> I can't possibly compare to their brilliance, yotta yotta yotta.

What you are doing is pretending you have found a flaw with the many
different models and the science behind them without showing you understand
the science or the models.

This is like my saying I have discovered that 2+2=5 because mathematicians
forget to include the equals sign. To support this I would have to show:

1) How the equals sign does this
2) That mathematicians have left this out!

When you fail to show what scientists are neglecting but you have taken into
account, you are failing to make a point.

> those are the discouraging words of someone who's afraid to try HIMSELF.
>  I've known people who do that ALL of the time.  THEY are all
> 'whatever'.  THEY have 'whatever'  YOU can't POSSIBLY compete.  Blah
> blah blah.  It's not worth doing/trying/saying/studying/whatever.

Why do you think it is not worth studying, etc? Maybe if you DID you could
learn some of it.

> I reject all of it.  These are the words that LOSERS use.

Yet you are the ones who used those words. Not a good sign from you.

....


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 1:46:33 AM
Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> writes:

....
> PARTICULARLY if
> politicians and activists try to use it to CONTROL ME and PREVENT ME
> from doing things I want to do, when they're *WRONG* and it's NONE OF
> THEIR GODDAMNED BUSINESS how *I* run *MY* life.
>
> pretty much THAT.
>
>> What do you hope to gain.
>
> debunk the "chicken littles", expose their evil plans, and RETAIN MY
> FREEDOM, DAMMIT!  [and everyone else's while I'm at it].  Something like
> THAT.

So, you finally admit that everything you've been going on about
is based on politics.

No surprise to me, just surprised you're admitting it.

-- 
Dan Espen
0
Dan
9/15/2015 1:50:44 AM
On 9/14/15, 6:37 PM, in article
ju2dnYDtN4X562rInZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 16:42, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/14/15, 12:10 PM, in article mt7605$imc$2@dont-email.me, "Dan Espen"
>> <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Also CO2's primary absorption of IR energy is below -50F.  That's MINUS
>>>> 50.  You know, COLD AS HELL.  So if temperature ever got BELOW -50F,
>>>> we'd be REALLY HAPPY to have a CO2 blanket keeping it warmer.
>>> 
>>> The temp is below -50F every day all over the planet:
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature
>>> 
>>> (Really don't care about this pointless argument though,
>>> I'd rather knock down a wall with my forehead.)
>> 
>> Really comes down to if you want to:
>> 
>> A) Accept the scientific view.
>> B) Accept the view pushed by conservatives who are looking to
>>    socialize costs and risks for the wealthy.
> 
> yeah, nothing pejorative there.  *sigh*

But those are the two views. Which do you accept? Or do you have a third
option? 

> OK *you* can either accept the SCIENTIFIC VIEW (as i show on my own web
> page) 

The idea you show a scientific view on your site that refutes the science is
not true. I asked you before: do you give me permission to post a response
to your site that uses your words?

> or *YOU* can accept what the COMMUNIST LIBERAL LEFTY SOCIALISTS
> are shoving down our throats in the name of SCIENCE in order to CONTROL
> everybody and make us all nothing but "bricks in the wall" as part of
> their evil 'progressive' plan.
> 
> 
> Ok why is MY logic NOT like yours?

In what way is it even close? I see no significant similarity.

> once you're past the pejorative "My science is better than your science"
> terminologies, we could actually discuss this.

It is not my science and yours: there is a well established scientific view
which is open to ANYONE to learn and study and even work to falsify.

> So I'm stopping now.

You never really started to try to make an argument for your anti-science
position.

> I gave you really good wikipedia commons links for
> charts showing global temperature analyses of various types, including
> the 12,000 year chart that shows that 8000 years ago, temperatures were
> WARMER.  there are a lot of visible cycles in that chart as well.  A
> fourier analysis on THAT data could prove to be VERY interesting.

Why not use a scientific site? Here:
<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php>

You pretend that the science is suggesting what? That there have never been
warm periods? That the best known info on the temperature records is being
ignored by scientists?

It is back to me saying 2+2=5 because mathematicians neglected the equals
sign. Utter gibberish.

You keep going on and on and on but you fail to make a point.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 1:53:33 AM
On 9/14/15, 6:38 PM, in article
ju2dnYPtN4U662rInZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 15:50, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
>> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>>>> want
>>>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>>>> to lie
>>>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>>>> 
>>>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>>>> 
>>>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>>>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>>>> 
>>>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>>>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>>>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
>>> 
>>> correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
>>> warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
>>> years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
>>> a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.
>> 
>> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf.
>> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with
>> references, and much myth debunking).
>> 
>> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and
>> reason. :)
> 
> if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
> And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.
> 
But you show no real understanding. That is a big weakness to your claims.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 1:53:59 AM
On 9/14/15, 6:41 PM, in article
g_ydnedwgZ_36mrInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 17:02, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> why do you think so many people pick this area
>> of science to deny when it is so well established?
>> 
> 
> it's because of the POLITICAL AGENDAS behind "what to do about it."
> 
> a) increase taxes
> 
> b) make it more expensive to live comfortably
> 
> c) tax the USA more than the rest of the world (KYOTO protocol)
> 
> d) do severe damage to the economy.  The economy runs on 'cheap energy'
> to do EVERYTHING.  increase the price of energy, EVERYTHING becomes more
> expensive.
> 
> e) reduce our freedom to travel by making it AS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE
> 
> 
> this only spells one thing:  ANTI-FREEDOM.
> 
> 
> no thank you.

So who do you think should pay for the harm of pollution: the ones leading
to the pollution or the ones being impacted by the harm (society as a
whole)?

I suspect you will not answer this question. To do so, and stay consistent
with your above rant, you would have to admit to how much socialism you
support.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 1:55:17 AM
On 9/14/15, 6:45 PM, in article
g_ydneZwgZ_-5WrInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 16:43, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/14/15, 12:09 PM, in article
>> a4qdnaQc7efOhmrInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
>> <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>>>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>>>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>>>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>>> 
>>> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
>>> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
>>> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
>>> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
>>> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
>>> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
>>> more about politics and less about science.
>> 
>> The data... go to any scientific site on it. Or go to Google Scholar.
>> 
>> It is not like there is a scientific debate on the basics. To pretend
>> otherwise is a lie.
> 
> uh, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO, does NOT make that true...

Straw man.

> it's like your "anti-science" claims, regarding what "climate change
> debunkers" say.

Straw man. 

> I'm starting to see you more as an alarmist, and less as a scientist.

Incorrect.

> If I have data that proves there's no "man made climate change", would
> you accept it?

I would likely want to see what experts in the field say and examine it...
but, sure, if the evidence was found to be wrong I would accept that.

> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

The implication here is that scientists have ignored historical climate
data. But that is demonstrably incorrect:

<http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/>

This is a key weakness to your claims: you keep saying or implying that
scientists have neglected a key variable or chunk of data but never
supporting that. Time and time again you make this error.

Earth's climate history is most certainly NOT being ignored by climate
scientists!  

> it was warmer 8000 years ago!  no cars back then.  no factories.  no
> coal burning.  nothing even remotely similar.  And human populations
> were pretty small, too.
> 
> Unless it was MAMMOTH FARTS causing it!
> 
> ( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha )

See: you fail to see the full picture and assume scientists are ignoring
data they are not. Do you not see why this is an error on your part?



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 2:03:10 AM
On 9/14/15, 12:54 PM, in article
1-KdnQ38sqaQu2rInZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

>>>> Why don't you name one? If you do I can pretty much assure you I will
>>>> accept the basic ideas they show. I will also accept that the science is
>>>> still growing and we are still learning and there are debates on details
>>>> and different models which, while they are similar, make somewhat different
>>>> predictions, etc.
>>> 
>>> I have a nice web site on the subject.
>>> 
>>> http://mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html

For what value of "nice"? I started looking at it... utter gibberish! Here,
I have started a review of it:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Please tell me you are not serious about that page... it HAS to be a joke,
right?

If I have time I might keep reading the page, but it is clear the author has
NO idea about the science at all. Just making complete nonsense claims and
pushing absurd straw men.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 2:32:20 AM
On 15/09/15 02:50, Dan Espen wrote:
> So, you finally admit that everything you've been going on about
> is based on politics.

Certainly AGW is a political and marketing phenomenon.

It for sure is not a scientific fact, beyond a trivial term in a hugely 
complex equation of climate..


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/15/2015 2:38:51 AM
On 9/14/15, 6:50 PM, in article mt7tea$j76$1@dont-email.me, "Dan Espen"
<despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> writes:
> 
> ...
> 
>> PARTICULARLY if
>> politicians and activists try to use it to CONTROL ME and PREVENT ME
>> from doing things I want to do, when they're *WRONG* and it's NONE OF
>> THEIR GODDAMNED BUSINESS how *I* run *MY* life.
>> 
>> pretty much THAT.
>> 
>>> What do you hope to gain.
>> 
>> debunk the "chicken littles", expose their evil plans, and RETAIN MY
>> FREEDOM, DAMMIT!  [and everyone else's while I'm at it].  Something like
>> THAT.
> 
> So, you finally admit that everything you've been going on about
> is based on politics.

Good point.
 
> No surprise to me, just surprised you're admitting it.

I looked at his site. My eyes are burning:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

What utter rubbish!


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 3:01:27 AM
On 9/14/15, 7:38 PM, in article mt80c3$g8p$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 15/09/15 02:50, Dan Espen wrote:
>> So, you finally admit that everything you've been going on about
>> is based on politics.
> 
> Certainly AGW is a political and marketing phenomenon.

And relativity, quantum mechanics, Newton's laws... all of science, right?

> It for sure is not a scientific fact, beyond a trivial term in a hugely
> complex equation of climate..



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 3:02:17 AM
On 09/14/2015 06:45 PM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> On 09/14/15 16:43, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/14/15, 12:09 PM, in article
>> a4qdnaQc7efOhmrInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
>> <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>>>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>>>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>>>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>>>
>>> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
>>> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
>>> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
>>> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
>>> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
>>> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
>>> more about politics and less about science.
>>
>> The data... go to any scientific site on it. Or go to Google Scholar.
>>
>> It is not like there is a scientific debate on the basics. To pretend
>> otherwise is a lie.
>>
>>
>
> uh, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO, does NOT make that true... it's like your
> "anti-science" claims, regarding what "climate change debunkers" say.
>
> I'm starting to see you more as an alarmist, and less as a scientist.
>
> If I have data that proves there's no "man made climate change", would
> you accept it?
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
>
> it was warmer 8000 years ago!  no cars back then.  no factories.  no
> coal burning.  nothing even remotely similar.  And human populations
> were pretty small, too.
>
> Unless it was MAMMOTH FARTS causing it!
>
> ( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha )
>
>


	In the ice cores from Greenland taken some years back there was
evidence of continental scale wild fires.  And you think mammoth 
emissions are laughable.  Tch, Tch.
	The emissions of earth's cattle maintained n vast herds and
in vast piggeries are not tiny and are polluting lots of waterways,
The thing is the solid waste is full of useful chemicals and the liquid
waste could be used as sources for several chemicals but because it
stinks they just dump in in leaky ponds to ferment.

	bliss
	
0
Bobbie
9/15/2015 3:26:56 AM
On 09/14/15 18:46, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/14/15, 6:29 PM, in article
> 4JCdnR1_7vkE6WrInZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/15 13:46, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> No offense, but you give no reason to trust in any way that you found
>>> something that some of the greatest scientific minds and organizations have
>>> all missed.
>>
>> yeah, yeah, heard THIS kind of thing before, THEY are all SO smart, and
>> I can't possibly compare to their brilliance, yotta yotta yotta.
> 
> What you are doing is pretending you have found a flaw with the many
> different models and the science behind them without showing you understand
> the science or the models.
> 
> This is like my saying I have discovered that 2+2=5 because mathematicians
> forget to include the equals sign. To support this I would have to show:
> 
> 1) How the equals sign does this
> 2) That mathematicians have left this out!
> 
> When you fail to show what scientists are neglecting but you have taken into
> account, you are failing to make a point.
> 
>> those are the discouraging words of someone who's afraid to try HIMSELF.
>>  I've known people who do that ALL of the time.  THEY are all
>> 'whatever'.  THEY have 'whatever'  YOU can't POSSIBLY compete.  Blah
>> blah blah.  It's not worth doing/trying/saying/studying/whatever.
> 
> Why do you think it is not worth studying, etc? Maybe if you DID you could
> learn some of it.

I don't.  that's the point.  it's the kinds of things "those people"
say, the things that I reject.  whatever, you apparently read something
into it that was not intended.  I thought it was pretty obvious, but
whatever. you'll see what you WANT to see, I suppose

>> I reject all of it.  These are the words that LOSERS use.
> 
> Yet you are the ones who used those words. Not a good sign from you.

*sigh* - you see what you WANT to see, don't you?



0
Big
9/15/2015 3:35:14 AM
On 9/14/15, 8:35 PM, in article
c5OdnZuv6puUD2rInZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 18:46, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/14/15, 6:29 PM, in article
>> 4JCdnR1_7vkE6WrInZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/14/15 13:46, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>>> No offense, but you give no reason to trust in any way that you found
>>>> something that some of the greatest scientific minds and organizations have
>>>> all missed.
>>> 
>>> yeah, yeah, heard THIS kind of thing before, THEY are all SO smart, and
>>> I can't possibly compare to their brilliance, yotta yotta yotta.
>> 
>> What you are doing is pretending you have found a flaw with the many
>> different models and the science behind them without showing you understand
>> the science or the models.
>> 
>> This is like my saying I have discovered that 2+2=5 because mathematicians
>> forget to include the equals sign. To support this I would have to show:
>> 
>> 1) How the equals sign does this
>> 2) That mathematicians have left this out!
>> 
>> When you fail to show what scientists are neglecting but you have taken into
>> account, you are failing to make a point.

No comment from you.

>>> those are the discouraging words of someone who's afraid to try HIMSELF.
>>>  I've known people who do that ALL of the time.  THEY are all
>>> 'whatever'.  THEY have 'whatever'  YOU can't POSSIBLY compete.  Blah
>>> blah blah.  It's not worth doing/trying/saying/studying/whatever.
>> 
>> Why do you think it is not worth studying, etc? Maybe if you DID you could
>> learn some of it.
> 
> I don't.  that's the point.  it's the kinds of things "those people"
> say, the things that I reject.

What people? Who? 

> whatever, you apparently read something into it that was not intended.  I
> thought it was pretty obvious, but whatever. you'll see what you WANT to see,
> I suppose

You repeatedly push straw men... assuming claims for others. In reality they
are your claims.

>>> I reject all of it.  These are the words that LOSERS use.
>> 
>> Yet you are the ones who used those words. Not a good sign from you.
> 
> *sigh* - you see what you WANT to see, don't you?

It is simply a fact those were YOUR words. And you noted it is losers who
use such words.

Anyway, I did dig through some of your site. Doubt I will finish it. What
utter nonsense you have posted!

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

I mean, really, are you serious with that nonsense? It seems more like
satire than anything someone would really mean.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 3:50:55 AM
In article <20150914185948.53d2bf41@wizardstower.lan>, "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
>JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>>  Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found it or
>> how we left it is also equally insignificant.
>
>"...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!

:)

I'm going to live forever (or die trying :) )



0
noydb
9/15/2015 3:56:48 AM
In article <ju2dnYPtN4U662rInZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>On 09/14/15 15:50, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
>> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>>>> want
>>>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>>>> to lie
>>>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>>>>
>>>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>>>>
>>>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>>>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>>>>
>>>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>>>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>>>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
>>>
>>> correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
>>> warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
>>> years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
>>> a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.
>> 
>> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf. 
>> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with 
>> references, and much myth debunking). 
>> 
>> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and 
>> reason. :)
>
>if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
>And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.

A conclusion is what we reach when we stop thinking. 

It's a seriously good (and easy) read. Please at least look at it before 
dismissing it. :)





0
noydb
9/15/2015 4:00:33 AM
On 15/09/15 04:02, Snit wrote:
> On 9/14/15, 7:38 PM, in article mt80c3$g8p$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 15/09/15 02:50, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> So, you finally admit that everything you've been going on about
>>> is based on politics.
>>
>> Certainly AGW is a political and marketing phenomenon.
>
> And relativity, quantum mechanics, Newton's laws... all of science, right?

No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not 
government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.

Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.

However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you 
mention are governed by linear equations.

Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the 
equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the 
models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work 
with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.

And that is why its such a suitable candidate for political 
manipulation. No one knows what really drives climate if indeed anything 
beyond climate itself does (and the sun of course).

Its far easier to understand what drives AGW-the-theory. Power and greed 
and corruption.

Its a multi-billion industry created out of nothing at all, that serves 
far too many people far too well for them to willingly abandon it.

Look at the level of comment here, and the religious fervour 
accompanying it. That has been created by marketing. And expensive 
marketing.


AGW is not science, its as political as Lysenkoism, and just as pernicious.




-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/15/2015 4:03:58 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:12:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>On 9/14/15, 1:58 PM, in article t6devadd0jq5kbhtm6tld4vitd535udk7c@4ax.com,
>"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:37:49 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> Gave us:
>> 
>>> You asked me to do some Googling for you to help you find something,
>> 
>>   No.  I did no such thing, you retarded piece of shit.
>
>And now you deny you asked me to Google things for you. Not much can do but
>to quote your own words back at you:
>    -----
>    Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar" or "hi
>    res atmospheric imaging assembly"
>    -----
>
  Is there a "for me" at the end of that, idiot?  No.  It was a
SUGGESTION  FOR YOU, dumbfuck.

  snipped remaining utter retardation by snit, the utterly retarded and
illiterate Usenet troll.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 4:29:18 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:50:27 GMT, noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) Gave us:

>Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf. 
>It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with 
>references, and much myth debunking). 
>
>When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and 
>reason. :)
>
>Thanks

  Big Bad Bob is a big sad retard.  We should all stop feeding the new
troll.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 4:30:49 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:43:38 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>On 9/14/15, 12:09 PM, in article
>a4qdnaQc7efOhmrInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
><best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>> 
>>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>> 
>> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
>> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
>> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
>> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
>> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
>> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
>> more about politics and less about science.
>
>The data... go to any scientific site on it. Or go to Google Scholar.
>
>It is not like there is a scientific debate on the basics. To pretend
>otherwise is a lie.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+climate+studies

0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 4:33:25 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:59:48 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
>JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>>  Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found it or
>> how we left it is also equally insignificant.
>
>"...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!
>
>Cybe R. Wizard

  Have you seen today's younger generation?

  These are the idiots standing behind the Buffoon Donald Trump.

  Intelligent Humans have mostly left already....  or wish they could.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 4:35:09 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:41:38 -0700, Big Sad Bob
<BigSadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:

>c) tax the USA more than the rest of the world (KYOTO protocol)

  Income taxes in Denmark (the happiest place on Earth) (and not by
their study either) are 60%.

  I wish idiots like you would don purple gym shoes and drink a nice
tall glass of Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 4:39:11 AM
On 9/14/15, 9:29 PM, in article bh7fvahgaa8gqmpqq5ojie3pmftvlsc6v2@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:12:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> On 9/14/15, 1:58 PM, in article t6devadd0jq5kbhtm6tld4vitd535udk7c@4ax.com,
>> "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:37:49 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> Gave us:
>>> 
>>>> You asked me to do some Googling for you to help you find something,
>>> 
>>>   No.  I did no such thing, you retarded piece of shit.
>> 
>> And now you deny you asked me to Google things for you. Not much can do but
>> to quote your own words back at you:
>>    -----
>>    Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar" or "hi
>>    res atmospheric imaging assembly"
>>    -----
>> 
>   Is there a "for me" at the end of that, idiot?  No.  It was a
> SUGGESTION  FOR YOU, dumbfuck.

You asked me to do it... for you. I have no such need and never suggested I
did. 

>   snipped remaining utter retardation by snit, the utterly retarded and
> illiterate Usenet troll.

So you cannot even figure out what point you were trying to make and it
upsets you.

OK.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 4:53:39 AM
On 9/14/15, 9:33 PM, in article 6s7fvad285g0nq6vdbtp00nedri1nkja8m@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:43:38 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> On 9/14/15, 12:09 PM, in article
>> a4qdnaQc7efOhmrInZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
>> <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:58:34 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The 'weather channel' co-founder (John Coleman) was a pretty important
>>>> guy in weather and climate stuff.  It was fun watching him on K-*U*-SI
>>>> doing the weather.  But he's no dummy.  and he doesn't buy into the
>>>> man-made global warming nonsense, either.
>>> 
>>> During the 16 years that I have been working at a TV station,
>>> there have been 8 or 9 meteorologist come and go.  I made a
>>> point to ask each one their opinion concerning man-made global
>>> warming.  None of them said they were convinced.  They would
>>> say something like where is the data?  This is anecdotal but
>>> with other things it leads me to believe this whole thing is
>>> more about politics and less about science.
>> 
>> The data... go to any scientific site on it. Or go to Google Scholar.
>> 
>> It is not like there is a scientific debate on the basics. To pretend
>> otherwise is a lie.
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+climate+studies
> 

Excellent... that and Google Scholar are great sources.

But do you have a point?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 4:54:32 AM
On 15/09/15 05:39, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:41:38 -0700, Big Sad Bob
> <BigSadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:
>
>> c) tax the USA more than the rest of the world (KYOTO protocol)
>
>    Income taxes in Denmark (the happiest place on Earth) (and not by
> their study either) are 60%.

Actually IIRC it has one of the highest suicide rates in Europe.

Although Syria has the one of the lowest in the world. I guess basically 
either no ones counting, or you just strap on the vest and become a 
freedom fighter.

Denmark is a miserable place.

>
>    I wish idiots like you would don purple gym shoes and drink a nice
> tall glass of Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.
>


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/15/2015 5:06:29 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:53:39 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>You asked me to do it...

  I never asked you to do anything, you illiterate fucking retard.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 5:11:20 AM
On 15/09/15 05:00, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <ju2dnYPtN4U662rInZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> On 09/14/15 15:50, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
>>> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob

>>> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf.
>>> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with
>>> references, and much myth debunking).
>>>
>>> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and
>>> reason. :)
>>
>> if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
>> And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.
>
> A conclusion is what we reach when we stop thinking.
>
> It's a seriously good (and easy) read. Please at least look at it before
> dismissing it. :)
>
>

David Mackay's excellent book has got NOTHING to do with climate change. 
It is about energy use and the possibility, or otherwise, of sustainable 
energy sources.

It is essentially examining the energy density of energy sources. It 
goes far, but does not really investigate the problem of renewable 
energy intermittency, which he hand waves away with 'storage'.

Neither does it examine more than superficially, the cost implications.

When you have read it, read this - not polished, but outlines the 
essential issues.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf

to complete the question marks hanging over renewable energy.

All of which has nothing to do with climate change as a valid theory or not.

Beyond illustrating that even if CO2 emissions were s serious problem 
renewable energy is no solution to it. And thus casting doubt on those 
who advocate such a solution that doesn't work, to a problem that 
probably doesn't exist.

Bit like Apple products really..


>
>
>


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.
0
The
9/15/2015 5:16:29 AM
On 9/14/15, 9:03 PM, in article mt85bl$4d0$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 15/09/15 04:02, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/14/15, 7:38 PM, in article mt80c3$g8p$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
>> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15/09/15 02:50, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> So, you finally admit that everything you've been going on about
>>>> is based on politics.
>>> 
>>> Certainly AGW is a political and marketing phenomenon.
>> 
>> And relativity, quantum mechanics, Newton's laws... all of science, right?
> 
> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.

Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.

> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
> 
> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
> mention are governed by linear equations.

No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential. And the ones
for quantum physics are mostly not:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
 
> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.

There are many models - and they have proved to be quite reliable in their
predictions (and "predicting" the past based on data from before that time).
But, sure, they disagree with each other to some extent and new ones are
being made and old ones improved.

There is still a lot to learn. Those who speak of the science being
"settled" are pushing a straw man - I do not think anyone says it is. But we
do have a solid and well supported foundation.

> And that is why its such a suitable candidate for political
> manipulation. No one knows what really drives climate if indeed anything
> beyond climate itself does (and the sun of course).

We do know we are changing the environment and have good evidence that is
changing the climate. And, really, that is common sense. You add a bunch of
an ingredient to a recipe and the recipe changes.

Of course it is not that simple and what and how things are changing is what
is being investigated.

But, sure, some try to take it out of the world of science and let the
politicians decide. This is MOSTLY Republicans in the US (though not all
Republicans do this, Schwarzenegger, for example, does not).

> Its far easier to understand what drives AGW-the-theory. Power and greed
> and corruption.

While different scientists have different motivations there is no reason to
think that is a driving factor. The DENIAL is from wanting to socialize the
costs of the rich and powerful.

> Its a multi-billion industry created out of nothing at all, that serves
> far too many people far too well for them to willingly abandon it.

You mean the petroleum industry which pushes the anti-science nonsense?

> Look at the level of comment here, and the religious fervour
> accompanying it. That has been created by marketing. And expensive
> marketing.

Agreed. The Koch brothers and Fox and others push anti-science nonsense and
many people eat it up.

> AGW is not science, its as political as Lysenkoism, and just as pernicious.

The science is not (in general) political and cannot be given how it comes
from countries with such different politics. The anti-science is, though,
and comes largely from the petroleum industry (though even the scientists
THEY funded dropped their denial of man-made global climate change some time
ago).




-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 5:23:10 AM
On 9/14/15, 9:00 PM, in article mt88i0$f3l$3@dont-email.me, "Bruce Sinclair"
<noydb@no.way> wrote:

> In article <ju2dnYPtN4U662rInZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> On 09/14/15 15:50, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
>>> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>>> On 09/14/15 02:08, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>>>> On 13/09/15 19:39, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> All interesting ideas - but I prefer to stick with the science. If you
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> to know the science, pick ANY scientific site which discusses it. Not a
>>>>>> right-wing whacko site pushing nonsense, nor Fox which actively works
>>>>>> to lie
>>>>>> about the situation, but an actual scientific site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ther is data, and there is inference.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Correlation is not causation, and that is why the breaking of the
>>>>> correlation for teh last 18 years is so significant.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Straw man argument that 'the earth got warmer between 1970 and 1995'
>>>>> does not *prove* AGW, merely that over two and a half decades the earth
>>>>> got a bit warmer. Big deal, it's done that many many times in the past.
>>>> 
>>>> correct, from the example I gave, where about every 70 years you have
>>>> warm periods, and every 70 years, cool periods (alternating every 35
>>>> years or so).  1970 to 2005 is pretty, uh, suspicious looking if you use
>>>> a 'hockey stick' graph to make it look like the sky is falling.
>>> 
>>> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf.
>>> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with
>>> references, and much myth debunking).
>>> 
>>> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and
>>> reason. :)
>> 
>> if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
>> And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.
> 
> A conclusion is what we reach when we stop thinking.
> 
> It's a seriously good (and easy) read. Please at least look at it before
> dismissing it. :)

And look at Bob's site... and the commentary I have added:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

He claims to be a super genius... but cannot use basic logic on this.




-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 5:24:19 AM
On 9/14/15, 10:11 PM, in article r2afvap8sp989527solqa2vh46rth0iqjl@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:53:39 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> You asked me to do it...
> 
>   I never asked you to do anything, you illiterate fucking retard.

You asked me to Google something.

And I quoted it.

And you snipped it.

So you are ashamed of your own actions. OK.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 5:24:47 AM
On 15/09/15 06:23, Snit wrote:
> On 9/14/15, 9:03 PM, in article mt85bl$4d0$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 15/09/15 04:02, Snit wrote:
>>> On 9/14/15, 7:38 PM, in article mt80c3$g8p$1@news.albasani.net, "The Natural
>>> Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/09/15 02:50, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>> So, you finally admit that everything you've been going on about
>>>>> is based on politics.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly AGW is a political and marketing phenomenon.
>>>
>>> And relativity, quantum mechanics, Newton's laws... all of science, right?
>>
>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>
> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>
>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
>>
>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>
> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.

Sigh.


And the ones
> for quantum physics are mostly not:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
>

yes, and they don't work completely.

>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.
>
> There are many models - and they have proved to be quite reliable in their
> predictions (and "predicting" the past based on data from before that time).
> But, sure, they disagree with each other to some extent and new ones are
> being made and old ones improved.
>
> There is still a lot to learn. Those who speak of the science being
> "settled" are pushing a straw man - I do not think anyone says it is. But we
> do have a solid and well supported foundation.
>

No, we dont even have that.

>> And that is why its such a suitable candidate for political
>> manipulation. No one knows what really drives climate if indeed anything
>> beyond climate itself does (and the sun of course).
>
> We do know we are changing the environment and have good evidence that is
> changing the climate. And, really, that is common sense. You add a bunch of
> an ingredient to a recipe and the recipe changes.
>

No one disputes that, but it is a clueless thing to say. The question is 
'by how much' and the EVIDENCE says 'not enough to make a difference 
that is even reliably detectable and certainly not enough to be worth 
spending billions on, when we cant even say that a couple of degrees 
warmer wouldn't be a better world' Especially as te great flowerings of 
civilisation happened in periods warmer than today.

> Of course it is not that simple and what and how things are changing is what
> is being investigated.
>

No, that is not what is being investigated, very LITTLE is being 
investigated, What is actually happening is that people working on 
flawed assumptions are generating predictions about things  that get 
them career advancement and headlines in the gutter press.

> But, sure, some try to take it out of the world of science and let the
> politicians decide. This is MOSTLY Republicans in the US (though not all
> Republicans do this, Schwarzenegger, for example, does not).
>

Nope, it is entirely a liberal thing in the USA. Politics and climate 
change are totally inextricable in the liberal mindset.

>> Its far easier to understand what drives AGW-the-theory. Power and greed
>> and corruption.
>
> While different scientists have different motivations there is no reason to
> think that is a driving factor. The DENIAL is from wanting to socialize the
> costs of the rich and powerful.
>

No, its not. there is no DENIAL except by those who refuse to accept 
that the facts do not support, and actually refute AGW.

Bog Oil doesn't care about climate change or renewable energy. They know 
renewable energy wont do the job and unless its nuclear it will have to 
be gas if coal is thrown out. Al Gore was working for a gas company when 
he started the propaganda machine rolling.


>> Its a multi-billion industry created out of nothing at all, that serves
>> far too many people far too well for them to willingly abandon it.
>
> You mean the petroleum industry which pushes the anti-science nonsense?

Partly yes, The gas companies wanted coal out, as they had gas surpluses 
and a pipeline to fill. Making CO2 a taxable poillutant was the aim of 
the game to get rid of coal.

So they played into the environmental movement, to demonise coal and 
nuclear, and climate change was the narrative they used.

big Oil LOVES green crap. It invented it.

>
>> Look at the level of comment here, and the religious fervour
>> accompanying it. That has been created by marketing. And expensive
>> marketing.
>
> Agreed. The Koch brothers and Fox and others push anti-science nonsense and
> many people eat it up.

Oh dear oh dear. The Koch Brothers. I bet they blew up the twin towers too.

Ive got some tinfoil hats for you cheap if you want them.

>
>> AGW is not science, its as political as Lysenkoism, and just as pernicious.
>
> The science is not (in general) political and cannot be given how it comes
> from countries with such different politics.

What a ridiculous sequence of non sequiturs you have assembled: In fact 
the 'science' comes largely from the UN, and is funded by people with 
international mindsets.



  The anti-science is, though,
> and comes largely from the petroleum industry (though even the scientists
> THEY funded dropped their denial of man-made global climate change some time
> ago).

I totally agree the propaganda has been very useful to oil companies. 
They invented it largely.

They fund lots of green crap all over the place. Devious is their middle 
name.

Follow the money, stoopid,

Cui Bono?

>
>
>
>


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.
0
The
9/15/2015 6:38:30 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:23:10 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.

  Captain Cook.  One of the greatest cartographers an ocean explorers
ever.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 6:40:16 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>He claims to be a super genius... but cannot use basic logic on this.

  Bob?  Bob is a SLOB.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 6:41:10 AM
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:47 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>On 9/14/15, 10:11 PM, in article r2afvap8sp989527solqa2vh46rth0iqjl@4ax.com,
>"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:53:39 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> Gave us:
>> 
>>> You asked me to do it...
>> 
>>   I never asked you to do anything, you illiterate fucking retard.
>
>You asked me to Google something.

  No.  I did not.  I suggested a site (google images), which provides
hundreds of images related to the discussion that global weather thread
was about.  There was no request, you illiterate twerp.
>
>And I quoted it.

  Good for you.  You further proved how retarded and illiterate you are.
>
>And you snipped it.

  No.  I told you that you were full of shit and you still are.
>
>So you are ashamed of your own actions. OK.

  You're a goddamned retarded twit.  But you have proven that since you
started trolling these groups long ago, presumptuous dipshit.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 6:44:27 AM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 03:56:48 GMT
noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

> In article <20150914185948.53d2bf41@wizardstower.lan>, "Cybe R.
> Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
> >On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
> >JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >>  Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found
> >> it or how we left it is also equally insignificant.
> >
> >"...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!
> 
> :)
> 
> I'm going to live forever (or die trying :) )
> 
Right on!  Me too.  In the words of Woody Allen:
"I don't want to live forever through my work.  I want to live forever
through not dying."

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Nice computers don't go down.
	Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
		"The Barsoom Project"
0
Cybe
9/15/2015 1:29:18 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:35:09 -0400
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:59:48 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
> <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:
> 
> >On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
> >JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >>  Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found
> >> it or how we left it is also equally insignificant.
> >
> >"...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!
> >
> >Cybe R. Wizard
> 
>   Have you seen today's younger generation?
> 
>   These are the idiots standing behind the Buffoon Donald Trump.

Some.  Lots more are standing behind Bernie Sanders.  I can get behind
that. too.
> 
>   Intelligent Humans have mostly left already....  or wish they could.

Wishing...

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Nice computers don't go down.
	Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
		"The Barsoom Project"
0
Cybe
9/15/2015 1:31:37 PM
On 15/09/15 14:31, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:35:09 -0400
> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:59:48 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
>> <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found
>>>> it or how we left it is also equally insignificant.
>>>
>>> "...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!
>>>
>>> Cybe R. Wizard
>>
>>    Have you seen today's younger generation?
>>
>>    These are the idiots standing behind the Buffoon Donald Trump.
>
> Some.  Lots more are standing behind Bernie Sanders.  I can get behind
> that. too.
>>
>>    Intelligent Humans have mostly left already....  or wish they could.
>
> Wishing...

Its when that thought gets to you yo consider a limited lifesapan may 
not be all that bad..


>
> Cybe R. Wizard
>


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.
0
The
9/15/2015 2:15:38 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:15:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> Gave us:

>On 15/09/15 14:31, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:35:09 -0400
>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:59:48 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
>>> <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found
>>>>> it or how we left it is also equally insignificant.
>>>>
>>>> "...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!
>>>>
>>>> Cybe R. Wizard
>>>
>>>    Have you seen today's younger generation?
>>>
>>>    These are the idiots standing behind the Buffoon Donald Trump.
>>
>> Some.  Lots more are standing behind Bernie Sanders.  I can get behind
>> that. too.
>>>
>>>    Intelligent Humans have mostly left already....  or wish they could.
>>
>> Wishing...
>
>Its when that thought gets to you yo consider a limited lifesapan may 
>not be all that bad..
>
>
>>
>> Cybe R. Wizard
>>

  I want to explore places like Machu Picchu.

  Those flooded caves with the huge crystals would have been cool to see
too (or hot, actually).

  I want to take a ball peen hammer down to central America and hunt for
jade boulders too.  That would be a cool way to spend a decade.  Fuck
meteorite hunting.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 3:05:29 PM
On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

....
>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>> 
>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>> 
>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
>>> 
>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>> 
>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.
> 
> Sigh.

Yes?

>> And the ones for quantum physics are mostly not:
>> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
> 
> yes, and they don't work completely.

What one does? Not even Newton's laws work "completely" - it does not take
into account relativistic effects.

But you claimed that all of those theories are governed by linear equations.
Not true and you never said what you thought it would mean IF it was true.

>>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.
>> 
>> There are many models - and they have proved to be quite reliable in their
>> predictions (and "predicting" the past based on data from before that time).
>> But, sure, they disagree with each other to some extent and new ones are
>> being made and old ones improved.
>> 
>> There is still a lot to learn. Those who speak of the science being
>> "settled" are pushing a straw man - I do not think anyone says it is. But we
>> do have a solid and well supported foundation.
> 
> No, we dont even have that.

Sure we do. But you want to push an anti-science agenda for some reason. OK.
Fine. You do not accept the science and I do. Not sure what other point you
are trying to make.

Maybe you are seeking to get a movie deal in Hollywood? Just imagine the
ads:

    All the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis but
    are exposed by a brave band of billionaires, the altruistic oil
    companies, and the wise Republican party.

Though you add in the twist at the end where the oil companies were really
behind it the whole time because, um, they want to have to pay for their own
harm and, um... you might want to have some help with that script!

.... 
> Follow the money, stoopid,

Sure: the money behind your anti-science stance is not that hard to follow.
But you STILL accept it. Your choice. I am OK with it and you seem to be,
too. 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 4:54:45 PM
On 9/14/15, 11:44 PM, in article dcffvaluonr6br0rjshq7vrvr9fpa6mvgf@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:47 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> On 9/14/15, 10:11 PM, in article r2afvap8sp989527solqa2vh46rth0iqjl@4ax.com,
>> "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:53:39 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> Gave us:
>>> 
>>>> You asked me to do it...
>>> 
>>>   I never asked you to do anything, you illiterate fucking retard.
>> 
>> You asked me to Google something.
> 
>   No.  I did not.

Someone is forging your account then! They made it appear like you posted:
    -----
    Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar" or "hi
    res atmospheric imaging assembly"
    -----

I suggest you change your password and the like to help protect yourself.

> I suggested a site (google images), which provides hundreds of images related
> to the discussion that global weather thread was about.  There was no request,
> you illiterate twerp.

You asked me to go to Google images and do a search. That is a request.

And below you go out of your way to advertise your insecurity. Go seek
professional help instead of asking me to assist you with your personal
challenges.
 
>> And I quoted it.
> 
>   Good for you.  You further proved how retarded and illiterate you are.
>> 
>> And you snipped it.
> 
>   No.  I told you that you were full of shit and you still are.
>> 
>> So you are ashamed of your own actions. OK.
> 
>   You're a goddamned retarded twit.  But you have proven that since you
> started trolling these groups long ago, presumptuous dipshit.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 4:57:11 PM
On 2015-09-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>>> 
>>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>>> 
>>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.

Some of them were. He had his degree, tried but could not get a
University job.
His gravity theory was after he had a Universtiy position. 

>>>> 
>>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>>> 
>>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.

Einstein's gravity theory is highly non-linear. It is also not
exponential (whatever that means).


>> 
>> Sigh.
>
> Yes?
>
>>> And the ones for quantum physics are mostly not:
>>> 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>

Quantum mechanics is entirely linear, and non-linear versions that
occasionally crop up have great problems with experiment. 

>> 
>> yes, and they don't work completely.

Whatever that means. 

>>>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>>>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>>>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>>>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.

Linear thoeries are "easy". We use the computer models exactly for the
non-linear models. We certainly have the computer power to work with the
non-linear bits. 

0
William
9/15/2015 5:37:31 PM
On 9/15/15, 10:37 AM, in article mt9l0q$fo2$2@dont-email.me, "William Unruh"
<unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-09-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
>> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>>>> 
>>>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>>>> 
>>>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
> 
> Some of them were. He had his degree, tried but could not get a
> University job.
> His gravity theory was after he had a Universtiy position.
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>>>> 
>>>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.
> 
> Einstein's gravity theory is highly non-linear. It is also not
> exponential (whatever that means).

I was talking about Newton's - which notes an exponential relationship
between distance and strength of force.

>>> 
>>> Sigh.
>> 
>> Yes?
>> 
>>>> And the ones for quantum physics are mostly not:
>>>> 
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
> 
> Quantum mechanics is entirely linear, and non-linear versions that
> occasionally crop up have great problems with experiment.

I would love to see you back this. Not even saying you are wrong... just
would love to see it.

>>> yes, and they don't work completely.
> 
> Whatever that means.
> 
>>>>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>>>>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>>>>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>>>>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.
> 
> Linear thoeries are "easy". We use the computer models exactly for the
> non-linear models. We certainly have the computer power to work with the
> non-linear bits. 

Exactly. This whole "linear equation" thing is a bizarre side issue.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 5:58:09 PM
On 15/09/15 17:54, Snit wrote:
> On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>>>
>>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>>>
>>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
>>>>
>>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>>>
>>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
> Yes?
>
>>> And the ones for quantum physics are mostly not:
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
>>
>> yes, and they don't work completely.
>
> What one does? Not even Newton's laws work "completely" - it does not take
> into account relativistic effects.
>
> But you claimed that all of those theories are governed by linear equations.
> Not true and you never said what you thought it would mean IF it was true.
>
>>>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>>>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>>>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>>>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.
>>>
>>> There are many models - and they have proved to be quite reliable in their
>>> predictions (and "predicting" the past based on data from before that time).
>>> But, sure, they disagree with each other to some extent and new ones are
>>> being made and old ones improved.
>>>
>>> There is still a lot to learn. Those who speak of the science being
>>> "settled" are pushing a straw man - I do not think anyone says it is. But we
>>> do have a solid and well supported foundation.
>>
>> No, we dont even have that.
>
> Sure we do. But you want to push an anti-science agenda for some reason. OK.

No, its YOU who are pushing anti science, hypotheses that cannot be 
falsified are not science.

18 years of no significant warming wrecks AGW completely, but you keep 
the faith.


> Fine. You do not accept the science and I do.

No, you cling to anti science in utter denial of facts and I accept 
science. But AGW ceased to have any science about it around 10 years 
ago, What is left is political marketing

  Not sure what other point you
> are trying to make.
>
> Maybe you are seeking to get a movie deal in Hollywood? Just imagine the
> ads:
>
>      All the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis but
>      are exposed by a brave band of billionaires, the altruistic oil
>      companies, and the wise Republican party.
>

The scientists didn't dream this one up. And you know it. Some lesser 
ones went along for the ride certainly

> Though you add in the twist at the end where the oil companies were really
> behind it the whole time because, um, they want to have to pay for their own
> harm and, um... you might want to have some help with that script!

What exactly about AGW harms fossil fuel companies? Have you seen how 
much oil and gas is being pumped?


>
> ...
>> Follow the money, stoopid,
>
> Sure: the money behind your anti-science stance is not that hard to follow.

I am noty anti- science. You are, and there is 10000 times more money 
behind green crap than the heartland institute has in its entire coffers.

Green crap is a trillion dollar plus gravy train of taxpayer money, and 
lots of smart little libeweals have their beaks dipped right in it.


> But you STILL accept it. Your choice. I am OK with it and you seem to be,
> too.
>

Sure I accept science. Being trained as a scientist and engineer, I can 
recognise it when see it, It seems you cant...

>
>


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.
0
The
9/15/2015 6:16:06 PM
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020507000309040606030909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 15/09/15 18:37, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-09-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
>> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>>>>
>>>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>>>>
>>>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
>
> Some of them were. He had his degree, tried but could not get a
> University job.
> His gravity theory was after he had a Universtiy position.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.
>
> Einstein's gravity theory is highly non-linear. It is also not
> exponential (whatever that means).
>
>
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>
>> Yes?
>>
>>>> And the ones for quantum physics are mostly not:
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
>
> Quantum mechanics is entirely linear, and non-linear versions that
> occasionally crop up have great problems with experiment.
>
>>>
>>> yes, and they don't work completely.
>
> Whatever that means.
>
>>>>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>>>>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>>>>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>>>>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.
>
> Linear thoeries are "easy". We use the computer models exactly for the
> non-linear models. We certainly have the computer power to work with the
> non-linear bits.
>
Not at the scale that allows us to map turbulent and convective flow 
accurately in anything like a sensible timescales.

That's why we still have wind tunnels


The earth is a bit bigger than a formula one car or an airliner..

Oh, and by the way look up what a linear equation is...




-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.

--------------020507000309040606030909
Content-Type: application/x-extension-eml;
 name="OT Wind Farm Databases and Danish Energy.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="OT Wind Farm Databases and Danish Energy.eml"

UGF0aDogbmV3cy5hbGJhc2FuaS5uZXQhZnUtYmVybGluLmRlIXVuaS1iZXJsaW4uZGUhaW5k
aXZpZHVhbC5uZXQhbm90LWZvci1tYWlsCkZyb206IENocmlzIEhvZ2cgPG1lQHByaXZhY3ku
bmV0PgpOZXdzZ3JvdXBzOiB1ay5kLWkteQpTdWJqZWN0OiBPVCBXaW5kIEZhcm0gRGF0YWJh
c2VzIGFuZCBEYW5pc2ggRW5lcmd5CkRhdGU6IFR1ZSwgMTEgTm92IDIwMTQgMTE6MjU6MTgg
KzAwMDAKTGluZXM6IDQxCk1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDxpOHAzNmExY3JiNnJpczIzMXBzMjlrZWpx
ZXRzY3ZsOGdhQDRheC5jb20+Ck1pbWUtVmVyc2lvbjogMS4wCkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogdGV4
dC9wbGFpbjsgY2hhcnNldD11cy1hc2NpaQpDb250ZW50LVRyYW5zZmVyLUVuY29kaW5nOiA3
Yml0ClgtVHJhY2U6IGluZGl2aWR1YWwubmV0IGxKem1MMEhIVk9CY1hBc3FDbzJJMGcxSVJY
NmhFNlBlNU5NbDJZSWJQa0hCOExtOUwzCkNhbmNlbC1Mb2NrOiBzaGExOllmRGx4d3lSL3Ey
R2Z5MGp3aDN4V1ZLV1RTQT0KWC1OZXdzcmVhZGVyOiBGb3J0ZSBBZ2VudCA2LjAwLzMyLjEx
ODYKWC1Oby1BcmNoaXZlOiB5ZXMKWHJlZjogbmV3cy5hbGJhc2FuaS5uZXQgdWsuZC1pLXk6
ODUzNzI3CgpCZWVuIGJyb3dzaW5nIGZvciBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBvbiBEZW5tYXJrJ3MgZW5l
cmd5IHN1cHBsaWVzLCB0byBzZWUKd2hhdCBhY3R1YWxseSBoYXBwZW5zLCBjb21wYXJlZCB3
aXRoIGFsbCB0aGUgaHlwZS4gRm9yIHRob3NlCmludGVyZXN0ZWQgaW4gc3VjaCB0aGluZ3Ms
IEkndmUgZm91bmQgdGhlc2U6CgpodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRoZXdpbmRwb3dlci5uZXQvaW5kZXgu
cGhwIGZvciBhIGRhdGFiYXNlIG9mIHdpbmQgZmFybXMKd29ybGQtd2lkZS4gU2VsZWN0IGJ5
IGNvdW50cnksIGFuZCB0aGVuIGJ5IHdoYXRldmVyIGRldGFpbCB5b3Ugd2FudCwKdXAgdG8g
ZW5kIDIwMTMuIEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCB0aGUgVUsgaGFzIDc1MyB3aW5kIGZhcm1zIHdpdGgg
MTAuNSBHVyBvZgppbnN0YWxsZWQgd2luZCBjYXBhY2l0eSAoc29tZSBvZiB0aGUgJ2Zhcm1z
JyBtYXkgb25seSBoYXZlIG9uZQp0dXJiaW5lKS4gRGVubWFyayBoYXMgMTUxMiB3aW5kIGZh
cm1zIHdpdGggYSBjYXBhY2l0eSBvZiA0LjggR1cuIAoKRm9yIGRhdGEgb24gRGVubWFyaydz
IGVuZXJneSB1c2FnZToKCmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmdpbmV0LmRrL0VOL0VsL1NpZGVyL2Rl
ZmF1bHQuYXNweCBDbGljayBvbiB0aGUgbWFwIHRvCnNlZSB1cC10by10aGUgbWludXRlIGRh
dGEgb24gZW5lcmd5IHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiBpbnRvIGFuZCBvdXQgb2YKRGVubWFyaywgYWNy
b3NzIGl0cyBib3JkZXJzIHdpdGggbmVpZ2hib3VycyBOb3J3YXksIFN3ZWRlbiBhbmQKR2Vy
bWFueS4gVXNlIEdvb2dsZSBUcmFuc2xhdGUgaHR0cHM6Ly90cmFuc2xhdGUuZ29vZ2xlLmNv
bS8jc3VibWl0IHRvCnVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIGRhdGEgaW4gdGhlIHRhYmxlIEVsc3lzdGVt
ZXQgTGlnZSBOdSAoVGhlIHBvd2VyIHN5c3RlbQpqdXN0IG5vdykuIE5vdCBzdXJlIHdoYXQg
dGhlIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgaXMgYmV0d2VlbiBDZW50cmFsZQprcmFmdHZhZXJrZXIgKD9wcmlu
Y2lwYWwgcG93ZXIgc3RhdGlvbnMpIGFuZCBEZWNlbnRyYWxlIGtyYWZ0dmFlcmtlcgooP3N1
YnNpZGlhcnkgcG93ZXIgc3RhdGlvbnMpLCBidXQgSSBhc3N1bWUgc2l6ZSBhbmQgZGlzdHJp
YnV0aW9uLgoKaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdmsuc2UvU3RhcnQvRW5nbGlzaC9PcGVyYXRpb25zLWFu
ZC1tYXJrZXQvTm9yZGljLVN5c3RlbS1NYXAvCmdpdmVzIGEgc2ltcGxlciBidXQgd2lkZXIg
cGljdHVyZSB0byB0aGUgYWJvdmUsIHdpdGggdGhlIHdob2xlIE5vcmRpYwpzeXN0ZW0gKE5v
cndheSwgU3dlZGVuLCBEZW5tYXJrLCBGaW5sYW5kIGFuZCBFc3RvbmlhKSBlbGVjdHJpY2l0
eQpzeXN0ZW0gZGV0YWlsZWQsIGFuZCBlbmVyZ3kgbW92ZW1lbnRzIGFuZCBwcmljZXMgaW4g
RXVyb3MsIHVwZGF0ZWQgYnkKdGhlIG1pbnV0ZS4gU2Nyb2xsIGRvd24gdG8gZ2V0IGEgc3Vt
bWFyeSB0YWJsZSBvZiBlbmVyZ3kgaW1wb3J0cyBhbmQKZXhwb3J0cyBhdCBhbnkgb25lIHRp
bWUsIGJ5IGNvdW50cnkuCgpodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm5vcmRwb29sc3BvdC5jb20vaGlzdG9yaWNh
bC1tYXJrZXQtZGF0YS8gZ2l2ZXMgaGlzdG9yaWNhbApkYXRhIG9uIHRoZSBOb3JkaWMgY291
bnRyaWVzLiBUaGVyZSdzIGEgX2xvdF8gb2YgZGF0YSBvZiBhbGwtc29ydHMKaGVyZSwgc28g
eW91IGhhdmUgdG8gYnJvd3NlIHRvIGZpbmQgd2hhdCB5b3Ugd2FudC4gSSBhc3N1bWUKRUU9
RXN0b25pYSwgTFY9TGF0dmlhIGFuZCBMVD1MaXRodWFuaWEuIAoKaHR0cDovL3Rpbnl1cmwu
Y29tL2t6NmU1Ymcgc2hvd3MgYSBtYXAgb2YgdGhlIERhbmlzaCBlbGVjdHJpY2l0eQpzeXN0
ZW0sIHdpdGggdGhlIHZhcmlvdXMgb2ZmLXNob3JlIHdpbmQgZmFybXMgYW5kIGNyb3NzLWJv
cmRlcgppbnRlcmNvbm5lY3RzLiBTcGVjaWZpYyBpbmZvIG9uIHRoZSBTd2VkaXNoIGFuZCBO
b3J3ZWdpYW4KaW50ZXJjb25uZWN0cyBjYW4gYmUgaGFkIG9uIFdpa2lwZWRpYS4KCi0tIAog
CkNocmlzCg==
--------------020507000309040606030909--
0
The
9/15/2015 6:23:51 PM
On 15/09/15 18:58, Snit wrote:
> On 9/15/15, 10:37 AM, in article mt9l0q$fo2$2@dont-email.me, "William Unruh"
> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
>>> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>>>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
>>
>> Some of them were. He had his degree, tried but could not get a
>> University job.
>> His gravity theory was after he had a Universtiy position.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>>>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.
>>
>> Einstein's gravity theory is highly non-linear. It is also not
>> exponential (whatever that means).
>
> I was talking about Newton's - which notes an exponential relationship
> between distance and strength of force.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_differential_equation


0
The
9/15/2015 6:24:59 PM
On 9/15/15, 11:16 AM, in article mt9n9g$8mo$1@news.albasani.net, "The
Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

.... 
>>> No, we dont even have that.
>> 
>> Sure we do. But you want to push an anti-science agenda for some reason. OK.
> 
> No, its YOU who are pushing anti science, hypotheses that cannot be
> falsified are not science.

Ah, so by accepting the general view of science (every single scientific
organization with a stated position, the mass of experts in the field,
almost all published papers, and the evidence itself) this, somehow, to you
makes me "anti-science", where your political based denial of it somehow
makes you "pro-science".

When you get to that point there really is nothing else to say. You are
simply not capable of being rational.

> 18 years of no significant warming wrecks AGW completely, but you keep
> the faith.

And repetition of unsupported myths does not help your case. Not even a
little. It just shows how you are completely ignorant of the topic.
 
....
>> Maybe you are seeking to get a movie deal in Hollywood? Just imagine the
>> ads:
>> 
>>      All the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis but
>>      are exposed by a brave band of billionaires, the altruistic oil
>>      companies, and the wise Republican party.
>> 
> 
> The scientists didn't dream this one up. And you know it. Some lesser
> ones went along for the ride certainly

LOL! So by all means do re-write your movie pitch. I would love to see it!

>> Though you add in the twist at the end where the oil companies were really
>> behind it the whole time because, um, they want to have to pay for their own
>> harm and, um... you might want to have some help with that script!
> 
> What exactly about AGW harms fossil fuel companies? Have you seen how
> much oil and gas is being pumped?

Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
energy sources. Wow.

....
>>> Follow the money, stoopid,
>> 
>> Sure: the money behind your anti-science stance is not that hard to follow.
> 
> I am noty anti- science.

You just deny well establishes theories based on your political wishes. Got
it!

....



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 6:25:14 PM
On 15/09/15 19:25, Snit wrote:
> On 9/15/15, 11:16 AM, in article mt9n9g$8mo$1@news.albasani.net, "The
> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> No, we dont even have that.
>>>
>>> Sure we do. But you want to push an anti-science agenda for some reason. OK.
>>
>> No, its YOU who are pushing anti science, hypotheses that cannot be
>> falsified are not science.
>
> Ah, so by accepting the general view of science (every single scientific
> organization with a stated position, the mass of experts in the field,
> almost all published papers, and the evidence itself) this, somehow, to you
> makes me "anti-science", where your political based denial of it somehow
> makes you "pro-science".
>
> When you get to that point there really is nothing else to say. You are
> simply not capable of being rational.
>
>> 18 years of no significant warming wrecks AGW completely, but you keep
>> the faith.
>
> And repetition of unsupported myths does not help your case. Not even a
> little. It just shows how you are completely ignorant of the topic.
>
> ...
>>> Maybe you are seeking to get a movie deal in Hollywood? Just imagine the
>>> ads:
>>>
>>>       All the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis but
>>>       are exposed by a brave band of billionaires, the altruistic oil
>>>       companies, and the wise Republican party.
>>>
>>
>> The scientists didn't dream this one up. And you know it. Some lesser
>> ones went along for the ride certainly
>
> LOL! So by all means do re-write your movie pitch. I would love to see it!
>
>>> Though you add in the twist at the end where the oil companies were really
>>> behind it the whole time because, um, they want to have to pay for their own
>>> harm and, um... you might want to have some help with that script!
>>
>> What exactly about AGW harms fossil fuel companies? Have you seen how
>> much oil and gas is being pumped?
>

so waht? they donty markedly reduce the amount of fossil fuele consumed 
and they make it easier to raise fossil prices and they cannot replace 
fossil fuel either.

> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
> energy sources. Wow.
>

I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having 
been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.

> ...
>>>> Follow the money, stoopid,
>>>
>>> Sure: the money behind your anti-science stance is not that hard to follow.
>>
>> I am noty anti- science.
>
> You just deny well establishes theories based on your political wishes. Got
> it!
>

Projecting your own fantasies on other people is merely a sign of youur 
delusional condition.

Good luck with your short term contract in teh renewables industry,. It 
wont be renewed.

> ...
>
>
>


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.
0
The
9/15/2015 6:31:42 PM
On 9/15/15, 11:31 AM, in article mt9o6o$ae7$1@news.albasani.net, "The
Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
>> energy sources. Wow.
>> 
> 
> I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having
> been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.

And yet you showed you did not even consider them in the idea of energy
production.

Not interested in your resume nor how big any part of your body is. You are
what you present yourself as: you are, at least in this are, very much
anti-science (rejecting a MAJOR and well supported theory) and you want to
present yourself as being pro-science.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 6:38:10 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:05:29 -0400
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

[...]
> 
>   I want to explore places like Machu Picchu.
> 
>   Those flooded caves with the huge crystals would have been cool to
> see too (or hot, actually).
> 
>   I want to take a ball peen hammer down to central America and hunt
> for jade boulders too.  That would be a cool way to spend a decade.
> Fuck meteorite hunting.

As I excavate the hill outside our front door I find geodes by the
butt-load.  I keep popping some open hoping for the lavender, blue,
red, orange, yellow or green.  So far, quartz only.

https://www.google.com/search?q=geode

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Nice computers don't go down.
	Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
		"The Barsoom Project"
0
Cybe
9/15/2015 7:21:09 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 
> Sure I accept science. Being trained as a scientist and engineer, I can 
> recognise it when see it, It seems you cant...

Not many people remember the Hadley Center's tree ring <cough>
"research".  Or more likely not many people ever heard of it.
NBC and CNN didn't talk about it much except to try to smear
the whistle blowers.

The "science" consists of computer models based on phoney
research, speculation and wishful thinking biased by a knee-
jerk political agenda.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
And what I mean by that it's an opportunity
to do things you think you could not do before."
  -Rahm Emanuel

The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
"They know when you pee down their
leg and tell them it's raining."
  -Judge Judy
0
Wildman
9/15/2015 7:43:43 PM
On 2015-09-14, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>>  Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found it or
>> how we left it is also equally insignificant.
>
> "...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!

   We all go sooner or later. 
0
JEDIDIAH
9/15/2015 9:12:11 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:57:11 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>On 9/14/15, 11:44 PM, in article dcffvaluonr6br0rjshq7vrvr9fpa6mvgf@4ax.com,
>"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:47 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> Gave us:
>> 
>>> On 9/14/15, 10:11 PM, in article r2afvap8sp989527solqa2vh46rth0iqjl@4ax.com,
>>> "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:53:39 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> Gave us:
>>>> 
>>>>> You asked me to do it...
>>>> 
>>>>   I never asked you to do anything, you illiterate fucking retard.
>>> 
>>> You asked me to Google something.
>> 
>>   No.  I did not.
>
>Someone is forging your account then! They made it appear like you posted:
>    -----
>    Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar" or "hi
>    res atmospheric imaging assembly"
>    -----
>
>I suggest you change your password and the like to help protect yourself.
>
  You're an idiot.  It is my post.  What it is NOT is a request or
asking you to do something, which you errantly continue to attempt to
claim.

  You dig now, you retarded motherfucker?

>> I suggested a site (google images), which provides hundreds of images related
>> to the discussion that global weather thread was about.  There was no request,
>> you illiterate twerp.
>
>You asked me to go to Google images and do a search. That is a request.

  I did NOT "ask you" to do anything, you stupid, illiterate fucking
retard.
>
>And below you go out of your way to advertise your insecurity.

  You're an idiot.  Above and below.

> Go seek
>professional help instead

  Fuck off, troll retard.  Go away,. little girl.

> of asking me to assist you with your personal
>challenges.

  You're a goddamned idiot.
> 
>>> And I quoted it.
>> 
>>   Good for you.  You further proved how retarded and illiterate you are.
>>> 
>>> And you snipped it.
>> 
>>   No.  I told you that you were full of shit and you still are.
>>> 
>>> So you are ashamed of your own actions. OK.

  You're a goddamned idiot.  I snipped, because that is what one does in
Usenet, you utterly retarded twit.

>> 
>>   You're a goddamned retarded twit.  But you have proven that since you
>> started trolling these groups long ago, presumptuous dipshit.

  Still true.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 9:21:01 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:37:31 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
<unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us:

>On 2015-09-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
>> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>>>> 
>>>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>>>> 
>>>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
>
>Some of them were. He had his degree, tried but could not get a
>University job.
>His gravity theory was after he had a Universtiy position. 
>
  Yep
>>>>> 
>>>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>>>> 
>>>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.
>
>Einstein's gravity theory is highly non-linear. It is also not
>exponential (whatever that means).
>
  Square of the distance for flux lines.  I doubt he knows what that is
though.
>
>>> 
>>> Sigh.
>>
>> Yes?
>>
>>>> And the ones for quantum physics are mostly not:
>>>> 
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
>
>Quantum mechanics is entirely linear, and non-linear versions that
>occasionally crop up have great problems with experiment. 
>
>>> 
>>> yes, and they don't work completely.
>
>Whatever that means. 
>
>>>>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>>>>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>>>>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>>>>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.
>
>Linear thoeries are "easy". We use the computer models exactly for the
>non-linear models. We certainly have the computer power to work with the
>non-linear bits. 

  I doubt he has any clue what an imaginary number is.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 9:23:27 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:58:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>I would love to see you back this. Not even saying you are wrong... just
>would love to see it.

  We would love to see you leave....  or die even.  You first.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 9:24:31 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:21:09 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>As I excavate the hill outside our front door I find geodes by the
>butt-load.  I keep popping some open hoping for the lavender, blue,
>red, orange, yellow or green.  So far, quartz only.

  Slice them with a diamond saw and polish the cut faces.  Sell on Ebay.

  A jewel of its own kind.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 9:27:14 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:43:43 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> Gave
us:

>
>The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
>crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.

  Al Gore's fucking credo.

  Reminds me of a "new sandwich" offered by the burger joints.

  Was a day when it was about the amount of meat.  Now, they sell you 3
ounces at the 6 ounce price.

  Fucking lame.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/15/2015 9:46:46 PM
On 9/15/15, 2:24 PM, in article h33hva1kh1u87hoq9nbcqgm84nmg55moq2@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:58:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> I would love to see you back this. Not even saying you are wrong... just
>> would love to see it.
> 
>   We would love to see you leave....  or die even.  You first.

So you cannot back your claims. OK.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 10:35:28 PM
On 9/15/15, 2:23 PM, in article r03hvaddf5i157mmf11mhoha205hmi6q36@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:37:31 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
> <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us:
> 
>> On 2015-09-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/14/15, 11:38 PM, in article mt8ede$rnj$1@news.albasani.net, "The
>>> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>> No. Oddly enough before the 20th century nearly all science was not
>>>>>> government funded at all. It was a rich man's hobby.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Some was. Heck, if you include exploration much of it was.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Einstein theories were developed BEFORE he was given a university place.
>> 
>> Some of them were. He had his degree, tried but could not get a
>> University job.
>> His gravity theory was after he had a Universtiy position.
>> 
>   Yep
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However you raise an interesting point: ALL of those theories that you
>>>>>> mention are governed by linear equations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No they are not. Not even gravity does... it is exponential.
>> 
>> Einstein's gravity theory is highly non-linear. It is also not
>> exponential (whatever that means).
>> 
>   Square of the distance for flux lines.  I doubt he knows what that is
> though.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sigh.
>>> 
>>> Yes?
>>> 
>>>>> And the ones for quantum physics are mostly not:
>>>>> 
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics>
>> 
>> Quantum mechanics is entirely linear, and non-linear versions that
>> occasionally crop up have great problems with experiment.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> yes, and they don't work completely.
>> 
>> Whatever that means.
>> 
>>>>>> Sadly what we know of climate is not. We do know at least some of the
>>>>>> equations governing climate, but of course these are not part of the
>>>>>> models used. Why? Because we don't even have the computing power to work
>>>>>> with the linear bits, let alone the non-linear bits.
>> 
>> Linear thoeries are "easy". We use the computer models exactly for the
>> non-linear models. We certainly have the computer power to work with the
>> non-linear bits.
> 
>   I doubt he has any clue what an imaginary number is.

Thanks for sharing that you doubt things based on your own ignorance.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 10:36:15 PM
On 9/15/15, 2:21 PM, in article 8n2hvap201r3i49uasusftoqt0doct4b66@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:57:11 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> On 9/14/15, 11:44 PM, in article dcffvaluonr6br0rjshq7vrvr9fpa6mvgf@4ax.com,
>> "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:47 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> Gave us:
>>> 
>>>> On 9/14/15, 10:11 PM, in article
>>>> r2afvap8sp989527solqa2vh46rth0iqjl@4ax.com,
>>>> "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:53:39 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>> Gave us:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> You asked me to do it...
>>>>> 
>>>>>   I never asked you to do anything, you illiterate fucking retard.
>>>> 
>>>> You asked me to Google something.
>>> 
>>>   No.  I did not.
>> 
>> Someone is forging your account then! They made it appear like you posted:
>>    -----
>>    Go to google images and search "hi res goes-r solar" or "hi
>>    res atmospheric imaging assembly"
>>    -----
>> 
>> I suggest you change your password and the like to help protect yourself.
>> 
>   You're an idiot.

Your view of me is not even slightly relevant. What is relevant is you asked
me to do a Google search (to do you a favor).

I asked you questions about what you were hoping I could help you find and
you sorta freaked out. OK, you got yourself in over your head. So be it.
....


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 10:37:17 PM
On 9/15/15, 12:43 PM, in article
nt-dnQROYZZy6WXInZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
<best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Sure I accept science. Being trained as a scientist and engineer, I can
>> recognise it when see it, It seems you cant...
> 
> Not many people remember the Hadley Center's tree ring <cough>
> "research".  Or more likely not many people ever heard of it.
> NBC and CNN didn't talk about it much except to try to smear
> the whistle blowers.
> 
> The "science" consists of computer models based on phoney
> research, speculation and wishful thinking biased by a knee-
> jerk political agenda.
> 
> "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
> And what I mean by that it's an opportunity
> to do things you think you could not do before."
>   -Rahm Emanuel
> 
> The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
> crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.

Ah, so you deny science. OK.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/15/2015 11:01:07 PM
In article <mt89jm$qfl$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 15/09/15 05:00, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <ju2dnYPtN4U662rInZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/15 15:50, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
>>>> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
>
>>>> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf.
>>>> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with
>>>> references, and much myth debunking).
>>>>
>>>> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and
>>>> reason. :)
>>>
>>> if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
>>> And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.
>>
>> A conclusion is what we reach when we stop thinking.
>>
>> It's a seriously good (and easy) read. Please at least look at it before
>> dismissing it. :)
>>
>>
>
>David Mackay's excellent book has got NOTHING to do with climate change. 
>It is about energy use and the possibility, or otherwise, of sustainable 
>energy sources.

While that is indeed the major point of his work, there are sections on 
climate change that are useful (ie include data, numbers and references).


>It is essentially examining the energy density of energy sources. It 
>goes far, but does not really investigate the problem of renewable 
>energy intermittency, which he hand waves away with 'storage'.

Not so. It's clear to me that electric cars can in fact do the storing you 
refer to - if there are enough of them. :)

Yes, OK that's glossed over a bit, but it's clear that something has to change 
... and, if only people took that message away, I for one would be *really* 
happy. :)

>Neither does it examine more than superficially, the cost implications.

The Stern review did that years ago. We could pay for the necessary changes 
out of "growth". We still can ... and we need to pay forthe changes with 
something soon. People with children really should care ... but it seems the 
human condition (not if it costs *me* something) prevails. I suspect "we" will 
do something *after* we have to. Classic humans - short term stupid. :)


>When you have read it, read this - not polished, but outlines the 
>essential issues.
>
>http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf
>to complete the question marks hanging over renewable energy.

Ther questions become very apparent when we try to put numbers on some of the 
things often talked about without them.


>All of which has nothing to do with climate change as a valid theory or not.

See above.
As to whether it's a 'theory' or not, the evidence is overwhelming. At that 
point, the doubters are really into some kind of religion (ie they don't 
"believe"), but that doesn't make the data less compelling, only tem more 
obvious silly. :)


>Beyond illustrating that even if CO2 emissions were s serious problem 
>renewable energy is no solution to it. And thus casting doubt on those 
>who advocate such a solution that doesn't work, to a problem that 
>probably doesn't exist.

Actually, the whole point of his book is to put some numbers around the 
waffle. At least the size of the problem becomes evident ... and the 
usefullness of things we can change (e.g. turning off cell phone chargers 
won't help :) ).


>Bit like Apple products really..

<Chuckle>. I feel sorry for apple, as I started there back in the II+ days. 
Everything was open and people were *encouraged* to fiddle with the box. 
Things went down hill with the first Mac and have never really recovered. :)






0
noydb
9/15/2015 11:13:47 PM
In article <20150915082918.4ecdc542@wizardstower.lan>, "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 03:56:48 GMT
>noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>
>> In article <20150914185948.53d2bf41@wizardstower.lan>, "Cybe R.
>> Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:54:47 -0500
>> >JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >>  Our time on this planet is just a blink of an eye. How we found
>> >> it or how we left it is also equally insignificant.
>> >
>> >"...how we /leave/ it."  Let's not rush things!
>> 
>> :)
>> 
>> I'm going to live forever (or die trying :) )
>> 
>Right on!  Me too.  In the words of Woody Allen:
>"I don't want to live forever through my work.  I want to live forever
>through not dying."

:) 100% agreement here. :)


0
noydb
9/15/2015 11:14:52 PM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:46:46 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:43:43 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> Gave
> us:
> 
>>
>>The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
>>crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.
> 
>   Al Gore's fucking credo.

You mean the Al Gore that received royalties from a
zinc mine in Tennessee while trying to close coal mines
in Kentucky and W. Virginia.  The same Al Gore that
dumps 45,000 pounds of CO2 every trip he makes from
Nashville to California in his 25 year old Gulfstream
while making million$ with his pseudo-science.  What
a guy!  Pseudo-science?  I think I may have misspelled
bullshit.

>   Reminds me of a "new sandwich" offered by the burger joints.
> 
>   Was a day when it was about the amount of meat.  Now, they sell you 3
> ounces at the 6 ounce price.
> 
>   Fucking lame.

But, but, you have a choice of toppings.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
"Interesting, the trousers conceal a tiny secondary horn."
  -Lrrr
0
Wildman
9/15/2015 11:53:34 PM
In alt.os.linux.ubuntu Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower.invalid> wrote:
> In the words of Woody Allen,
> "I don't want to live forever through my work.
>  I want to live forever through not dying."

Hmmm...But another Woody Allen quote is,
  "I'm not afraid of dying.
   I just don't want to be there when it happens."

P.S. And I'm sorry for inadvertantly starting this whole
stupid ot thread with that Margaret Thatcher quote way above.
My intent was just to be funny. And, personally, I've killfiled
the several people who just kept interminably following each other
up with rant after rant and rave after rave.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )
0
JohnF
9/16/2015 3:42:13 AM
On 15/09/15 06:23, Snit wrote:

>> The Koch brothers and Fox and others push anti-science
>> nonsense and many people eat it up.
> 

THEN, On 09/14/15 23:38, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:

> Oh dear oh dear. The Koch Brothers. I bet they blew up the twin towers too.
> 
> Ive got some tinfoil hats for you cheap if you want them.

then _I_ added...


I've given up trying to talk sense into Snit.  He continues on with his
memorized responses, propoganda, etc. like a 'Media Matters' brown
shirt.  I've seen his type before.  He speaks in slogans as if they were
facts, and uses that to "prove" his point.

(I asked him what was wrong with Fox News, and he came back with a bunch
of similar slogan-like responses.  Actual surveys and a list of the
questions asked would have been helpful, and some kind of indication
that it was done by a reputable survey organization AND was a
representative sample.  And of course, giving "disagreement" the label
'anti-science', and then pejoratively insulting everyone who does not
agree as "not believing in science" goes along with it).

Nevermind if you use actual science to show there's no man-made global
warming, such as gas solubility, chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
Even with charts and graphs that prove the point beyond doubt, the
slogans continue.

That's why I've stopped.  The point has already been overwhelmingly made
against 'AGW' in the face of nothing but SLOGANS, and Alynsky-ite rhetoric.

REAL science usually contains theories, and experimental proof.  A nice
experimental proof would be to work on some REAL temperature data.

SO...

I found THESE recently... nice charts saved in Wikipedia.  The 12,000
year one is particularly fun.  8,000-10,000 years ago it was WARMER than
it is now, for SEVERAL of the measurements [and the average].  And human
population was MINISCULE by comparison.  And there were no cars, no
coal-fired electricity plants, no human activity that COULD be
responsible for global warming if it the enviro-nazis were all RIGHT
about the CO2.  Which they're not.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

note:  the 2004 number doesn't correspond to their 'average' line very
well.  So if you do comparisons, you compare analyses.  'average to
average' i.e. "the black line".  I have other sources of more recent
data that I linked to on my web page.  That was back in 2012 I think,
when the temperatures were no longer flat, and were starting to go DOWN
[like they ought to, until about 2040].

The _REALLY_ fun part?  Since the last ice age, it hasn't changed more
than a degree C from what I can see in that chart.  "hockey stick" indeed.


0
Big
9/16/2015 5:00:44 AM
On 09/15/15 11:16, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
> 18 years of no significant warming wrecks AGW completely, but you keep
> the faith.

that actually fits MY model pretty well - the peak of 2 nearly
coincident sine waves.  they were more in phase in the 1930's, during a
slightly warmer period, and in the 1970's, during a very cold period.


I like the way Snit is throwing the term "anti-science" around the way
that the left uses "anti-choice" or "anti-whatever".  It's like wearing
a soviet flag and singing the worker's anthem...

daaaaah, dah-dah-dah, dah-daaaaah, dah-daaaaah....

[heh]

(it really DOES make him look like an activist - if he threw actual
EQUATIONS, NUMBERS, and SCIENCE, I'd consider it "proof")


0
Big
9/16/2015 5:07:38 AM
On 09/15/15 11:25, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> No, its YOU who are pushing anti science, hypotheses that cannot be
>> falsified are not science.
> 
> Ah, so by accepting the general view of science (every single scientific
> organization with a stated position, the mass of experts in the field,
> almost all published papers, and the evidence itself) this, somehow, to you
> makes me "anti-science", where your political based denial of it somehow
> makes you "pro-science".
> 
> When you get to that point there really is nothing else to say. You are
> simply not capable of being rational.
> 

ha ha ha ha ha ha!  This is getting even BETTER!

I'm not going to bother reading the hit piece you did on my web site

http://mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html

I haven't looked at the access logs in a while, but I was getting a few
hundred hits a month at one time.  my music page usually does better
anyway.  music is more fun.

but I have some nice links, to things like this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/13/mathematician_predicts_sun_to_go_quiet_for_ten_years_from_2030/

and this

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/

and this

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-climate-change-myth

and this

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

and this

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

which confirms what I said, basicall that:

"The human contribution to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is minimal
in comparison to other natural means, including volcanic emmission and
CO2 produced by animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean.
The human "carbon footprint" is vastly outweighed by all of these factors."

other than the fact that CO2 has about 1% of the effect as WATER on any
kind of 'global warming'.  Find it on my web page for the math to prove
it, and the charts to go with it.

and there's also THIS:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/

(Norwegian study, doubling CO2 concentrations only increases world
temperature by about 2 degrees C)


and so on. yeah, everyone's "welcome". heh.

(destroy away, be specific, be scientific.  but no slogans, they're
starting to BORE me)


0
Big
9/16/2015 5:17:31 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:00 PM, in article
zcydnb8Mj9oJamXInZ2dnUU7-QednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 15/09/15 06:23, Snit wrote:
> 
>>> The Koch brothers and Fox and others push anti-science
>>> nonsense and many people eat it up.
>> 
> 
> THEN, On 09/14/15 23:38, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
> 
>> Oh dear oh dear. The Koch Brothers. I bet they blew up the twin towers too.
>> 
>> Ive got some tinfoil hats for you cheap if you want them.
> 
> then _I_ added...
> 
> 
> I've given up trying to talk sense into Snit.

Your problem is you never STARTED talking sense. Remember, your whole view
point on this is gibberish. I noted it in reference to your site:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about and are incapable
of using anything as strong as grade school reasoning.

Really, how can you expect ANYONE to take anything you say on this topic at
all seriously? 

> He continues on with his
> memorized responses, propoganda, etc. like a 'Media Matters' brown
> shirt.  I've seen his type before.  He speaks in slogans as if they were
> facts, and uses that to "prove" his point.

I point to scientific sites and research.

> (I asked him what was wrong with Fox News, and he came back with a bunch
> of similar slogan-like responses.

I came back with research. Here it is AGAIN!

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://illinois-online.org/krassa/ps101/Readings/Kull%20Ramsay%20Lewis%20200
3.pdf

-----
| Standing out in the analysis are Fox and NPR/PBS, but for opposite
| reasons. Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most
| misperceptions. NPR/PBS are notable because their viewers and
| listeners consistently held fewer misperceptions than respondents
| who obtained their information from other news sources.
| ...
| Fox is the most of consistently significant predictor of
| misperceptions.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf
-----
| In this study, the results are very clear: the more people use Fox
| News, the more rumors they have heard and the more they believe. We
| interpret this to mean that exposure to the news network promotes
| rumor contact and belief.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/
-----
| The conclusion: Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people
| learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News,
| lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don�t
| watch any news at all. ... the results show us that there is
| something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on
| these questions than those who don�t watch any news at all.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
Over 60% of the checked claims are rated "Mostly False", "False", or "Pants
on Fire". No other news station comes close to that.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-info
rmed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/
-----
| The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal,
| someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just
| > 1.04 domestic questions correctly � a figure which is significantly
| worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the
| other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to
| answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk
| shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show
| with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
-----

Watching Fox not only was found to be correlated with being less informed
than watching no news at all (it is a misinformation channel), it was
correlated with being less informed than watching a comedy channel. The
"liberal" NPR was coorelated with being most informed. Liberals tend to be
better informed and better educated.

Really, when evidence suggests watching no news at all, or Comedy Central,
leads to being better informed than a "news" station it might not be wise to
refer to them as news station at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
-----
| To answer these and other questions we developed a more systematic
| set of questions that were included in a series of three polls,
| conducted over June through September, with a total of 3,334
| respondents. This was combined with the findings from four other
| polls conducted January through May for a total data set of 8634
| respondents.
....
| Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely
| than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their
| news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These
| variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in
| the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these
| variations can also be found when comparing the demographic
| subgroups of each audience.
....
| Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions� and were
| more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all
| three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there
| was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three
| misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://gawker.com/5713739/fox-news-memo-dont-mention-science-without-mention
ing-anti-science
-----
Fox News Memo: Don't Mention Science Without Mentioning Anti-Science

| Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change
| data...
| 
| ...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or
| cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that
| such theories are based upon data that critics have called into
| question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions
| as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://gabe.palomares.com.au/uni/56.full%20-%20Copy.pdf
-----
| Although the success of Fox News is something to marvel at from a
| commercial perspective, this analysis does illustrate cause for
| concern. Specifically, evidence indicates that the Fox News
| audience prefers news that shares their own point of view on
| politics and issues, while CNN and network news watchers do not. The
| findings go a step further to illustrate that Fox News viewers have
| less familiarity with issues and events in the news that may be
| critical of their point of view. The Fox audience paid less
| attention to the September 11 congressional hearings and reports of
| higher gas prices than those who watch CNN and network news.
| Finally, of the people who were unaware of how many U.S. soldiers
| had died in Iraq (almost half the sample), those who frequently
| watch Fox News were more likely than nonviewers to underestimate the
| death toll.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://archive.battlecreekenquirer.com/assets/pdf/A51963891026.pdf
-----
| In its relatively short life span, Fox News has staked out a
| distinctive reputation for delivering a proconservative perspective
| on issues and events. A systematic comparison of Fox News� coverage
| of national issues with the coverage provided by other new media and
| two ��old�� media (AP and UPI) demonstrated that Fox News�
| reputation was deserved�the outlet�s news coverage showed a
| consistently pro-Republican slant (Groeling & Baum, 2007). Despite
| the fact that real-world conditions generated significantly more
| ��bad news�� stories about Republican candidates contesting the 2006
| congressional elections (due mainly to the series of
| lobbying-related scandals involving Republican incumbents), Fox News
| was the only news outlet in which negative stories about Republicans
| did not outnumber balanced or positive stories.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_war
ming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf
-----
| Over a recent six-month period, 93 percent of Fox News Channel�s
| representations of climate science were misleading (37 out of 40
| instances).
| ...
| UCS�s examination finds that the misleading citations include broad
| dismissals of human-caused climate change, disparaging comments
| about individual scientists, rejections of climate science as a body
| of knowledge, and cherry picking of data. Fox News Channel citations
| also included several discussions in which misleading claims
| dominated accurate ones. Furthermore, much of this coverage
| denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in
| scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of
| climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pd
f
-----
| These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of
| exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also
| not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted
| Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such
| misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser
| margin than those who voted Republican.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/Global-Warming-Fox-News.
pdf
-----
| As shown in Table 1, more exposure to Fox News was associated with
| more rejection of many mainstream scientists� claims about global
| warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that
| ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-the-least-trusted-tv-news-source-among-all-
americans/
-----
| The New Republic looked at the data and gleaned that Fox News, while
| the �most trusted,� also had the most deeply polarized fanbase,
| largely made up of �the Republican Party�s most conservative
| members.�
-----

So even though Fox is the least reliable, and its viewers the worst
informed, conservatives tend to trust Fox over any other source!

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://prq.sagepub.com/content/63/4/834
-----
| The content analysis demonstrates that Fox News�s coverage was more
| favorable to the Republican Party than it was to the Democratic
| Party, while CNN�s coverage was more impartial.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-cover
age-of-un-clima/196387
-----
| Doubters Dominated On Fox News, The Majority Of Whom Were
| Unqualified. Fox News tipped the balance toward those on the
| opposite side of the facts, as 69 percent of guests and 75 percent
| of mentions cast doubt on climate science. Seventy-three percent of
| doubters hosted by Fox News had no background in climate science.
-----
OK, this is from the liberal Media Matters, but Fox's response was to lie
about the consensus among scientists. If they cannot defend themselves
without lying it is hard to take them seriously. The findings of Media
Matters were largely supported elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://hij.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/13/1940161211425410.abstract
-----
| Evidence from a content analysis of climate change coverage on Fox
| News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox
| takes a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and
| MSNBC. Fox also interviews a greater ratio of climate change
| doubters to believers.
| 
| That is, the views of Republicans are strongly linked with the news
| outlet they watch, regardless of how well that outlet aligns with
| their political predispositions. In contrast, Democrats don�t vary
| much in their beliefs as a function of cable news use. This
| asymmetry suggests that some Republicans, who as a group tend to be
| predisposed toward global warming skepticism, are less skeptical
| when exposed to information on the reality and urgency of climate
| change.
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------

> Actual surveys and a list of the
> questions asked would have been helpful, and some kind of indication
> that it was done by a reputable survey organization AND was a
> representative sample.  And of course, giving "disagreement" the label
> 'anti-science', and then pejoratively insulting everyone who does not
> agree as "not believing in science" goes along with it).

If you find your anti-science stance to be one you do not like the change
it. Do not expect me not to note it is anti-science.

> Nevermind if you use actual science to show there's no man-made global
> warming, such as gas solubility, chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
> Even with charts and graphs that prove the point beyond doubt, the
> slogans continue.

You cannot prove a negative. And you are completely ignorant about the
topic. As proved:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

> That's why I've stopped.  The point has already been overwhelmingly made
> against 'AGW' in the face of nothing but SLOGANS, and Alynsky-ite rhetoric.

A complete lie from you.

> REAL science usually contains theories, and experimental proof.

Right. And you reject real science.

> A nice
> experimental proof would be to work on some REAL temperature data.
> 
> SO...
> 
> I found THESE recently... nice charts saved in Wikipedia.  The 12,000
> year one is particularly fun.  8,000-10,000 years ago it was WARMER than
> it is now, for SEVERAL of the measurements [and the average].  And human
> population was MINISCULE by comparison.  And there were no cars, no
> coal-fired electricity plants, no human activity that COULD be
> responsible for global warming if it the enviro-nazis were all RIGHT
> about the CO2.  Which they're not.
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
> 
> note:  the 2004 number doesn't correspond to their 'average' line very
> well.  So if you do comparisons, you compare analyses.  'average to
> average' i.e. "the black line".  I have other sources of more recent
> data that I linked to on my web page.  That was back in 2012 I think,
> when the temperatures were no longer flat, and were starting to go DOWN
> [like they ought to, until about 2040].
> 
> The _REALLY_ fun part?  Since the last ice age, it hasn't changed more
> than a degree C from what I can see in that chart.  "hockey stick" indeed.
> 
> 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:21:08 AM
On 09/15/15 11:31, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
>> energy sources. Wow.

(Hey Snit, do YOU know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, and how it
relates to the production of electricity?)

> 
> I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having
> been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.

I bet YOU understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics!  [that's a
compliment, probably deserved].

and you probably understand how it limits what these 'renewables' can
actually produce.


I used to run nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy.  So I have a pretty
good idea of how power generation works.  [they ran us through the
equivalent of a bachelor's degree in physics and power plant operations,
in a period of about 6 months.  Dropout rate was well over 50%.  Then it
was another 6 months at a prototype reactor learning to operate the
systems, then not quite 4 years on a submarine, pushing a powerful
weapons platform through the water and making the world safe for Democracy]



0
Big
9/16/2015 5:25:08 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:07 PM, in article
JqqdnZlhOv-vZGXInZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 11:16, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>> 18 years of no significant warming wrecks AGW completely, but you keep
>> the faith.
> 
> that actually fits MY model pretty well - the peak of 2 nearly
> coincident sine waves.  they were more in phase in the 1930's, during a
> slightly warmer period, and in the 1970's, during a very cold period.
> 
> 
> I like the way Snit is throwing the term "anti-science" around the way
> that the left uses "anti-choice" or "anti-whatever".  It's like wearing
> a soviet flag and singing the worker's anthem...
> 
> daaaaah, dah-dah-dah, dah-daaaaah, dah-daaaaah....
> 
> [heh]
> 
> (it really DOES make him look like an activist - if he threw actual
> EQUATIONS, NUMBERS, and SCIENCE, I'd consider it "proof")
> 
> 

Keep in mind you have NO clue what you are talking about.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:36:14 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:17 PM, in article
ee6dnQh67PEfZmXInZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 11:25, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> No, its YOU who are pushing anti science, hypotheses that cannot be
>>> falsified are not science.
>> 
>> Ah, so by accepting the general view of science (every single scientific
>> organization with a stated position, the mass of experts in the field,
>> almost all published papers, and the evidence itself) this, somehow, to you
>> makes me "anti-science", where your political based denial of it somehow
>> makes you "pro-science".
>> 
>> When you get to that point there really is nothing else to say. You are
>> simply not capable of being rational.
>> 
> 
> ha ha ha ha ha ha!  This is getting even BETTER!
> 
> I'm not going to bother reading the hit piece you did on my web site

I note where you have no clue:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>
.... 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:36:39 AM
On 09/15/15 11:38, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/15/15, 11:31 AM, in article mt9o6o$ae7$1@news.albasani.net, "The
> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
>>> energy sources. Wow.
>>>
>>
>> I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having
>> been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.
> 
> And yet you showed you did not even consider them in the idea of energy
> production.
> 
> Not interested in your resume nor how big any part of your body is. You are
> what you present yourself as: you are, at least in this are, very much
> anti-science (rejecting a MAJOR and well supported theory) and you want to
> present yourself as being pro-science.
> 

<facetious>
THAT'S RIGHT, the EARTH is the CENTER of the UNIVERSE, because EVERYBODY
KNOWS IT!  And you SUN-CENTRISTS are just ANTI-SCIENCE because we ALL
know that Ptolomey's [insane] planetary motion model is the CORRECT one!
 COPERNICUS is INSANE!  And GALLILEO is a HERETIC!  And Keppler...
Keppler... he's an anti-science Fox News watcher!
</facetious>

seems this idea of populist "accepted" science, and the attempt to
SILENCE THE DEBATE, has been done before...

(reference to geocentric model, here:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model )

0
Big
9/16/2015 5:36:48 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:25 PM, in article
MsCdnWuVJYfWYGXInZ2dnUU7-VmdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 11:31, The Natural Philosopher so wittily quipped:
>>> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
>>> energy sources. Wow.
> 
> (Hey Snit, do YOU know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, and how it
> relates to the production of electricity?)
> 
>> 
>> I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having
>> been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.
> 
> I bet YOU understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics!  [that's a
> compliment, probably deserved].

What you think others know is not relevant. Your gibberish on climate change
is.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Proved. You have no clue what you are talking about.

> and you probably understand how it limits what these 'renewables' can
> actually produce.
> 
> 
> I used to run nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy.  So I have a pretty
> good idea of how power generation works.  [they ran us through the
> equivalent of a bachelor's degree in physics and power plant operations,
> in a period of about 6 months.  Dropout rate was well over 50%.  Then it
> was another 6 months at a prototype reactor learning to operate the
> systems, then not quite 4 years on a submarine, pushing a powerful
> weapons platform through the water and making the world safe for Democracy]
> 
> 
> 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:37:29 AM
On 09/15/15 16:01, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/15/15, 12:43 PM, in article
> nt-dnQROYZZy6WXInZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
> <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sure I accept science. Being trained as a scientist and engineer, I can
>>> recognise it when see it, It seems you cant...
>>
>> Not many people remember the Hadley Center's tree ring <cough>
>> "research".  Or more likely not many people ever heard of it.
>> NBC and CNN didn't talk about it much except to try to smear
>> the whistle blowers.
>>
>> The "science" consists of computer models based on phoney
>> research, speculation and wishful thinking biased by a knee-
>> jerk political agenda.
>>
>> "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
>> And what I mean by that it's an opportunity
>> to do things you think you could not do before."
>>   -Rahm Emanuel
>>
>> The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
>> crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.
> 
> Ah, so you deny science. OK.
> 
> 

"deny science".  _LAME_.  try facts instead of pejoratives.  k-thx-bubye



0
Big
9/16/2015 5:39:37 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:36 PM, in article
LOGdnfWZiL2VnWTInZ2dnUU7-Yf46u6z@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 11:38, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/15/15, 11:31 AM, in article mt9o6o$ae7$1@news.albasani.net, "The
>> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
>>>> energy sources. Wow.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having
>>> been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.
>> 
>> And yet you showed you did not even consider them in the idea of energy
>> production.
>> 
>> Not interested in your resume nor how big any part of your body is. You are
>> what you present yourself as: you are, at least in this are, very much
>> anti-science (rejecting a MAJOR and well supported theory) and you want to
>> present yourself as being pro-science.
>> 
> 
> <facetious>
> THAT'S RIGHT, the EARTH is the CENTER of the UNIVERSE, because EVERYBODY
> KNOWS IT!  And you SUN-CENTRISTS are just ANTI-SCIENCE because we ALL
> know that Ptolomey's [insane] planetary motion model is the CORRECT one!
>  COPERNICUS is INSANE!  And GALLILEO is a HERETIC!  And Keppler...
> Keppler... he's an anti-science Fox News watcher!
> </facetious>
> 
> seems this idea of populist "accepted" science, and the attempt to
> SILENCE THE DEBATE, has been done before...
> 
> (reference to geocentric model, here:
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model )
> 
See: no real comments from you because you are completely clueless about
science. Proved here:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Remember: I am the one supporting the use of the scientific method and
saying to look to scientific sites and studies and organizations to learn
about science.

You say to buy into your gibberish.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Proved that it is utter gibberish.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:41:40 AM
On 09/14/15 18:55, Snit so wittily quipped:
> I suspect you will not answer this question.

I don't answer 'loaded questions'.

IT'S A TRAP!  (Adm. Ackbar)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

0
Big
9/16/2015 5:44:33 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:39 PM, in article
LOGdnfSZiL0tnWTInZ2dnUU7-Yf46u6z@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 16:01, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/15/15, 12:43 PM, in article
>> nt-dnQROYZZy6WXInZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Wildman"
>> <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:16:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sure I accept science. Being trained as a scientist and engineer, I can
>>>> recognise it when see it, It seems you cant...
>>> 
>>> Not many people remember the Hadley Center's tree ring <cough>
>>> "research".  Or more likely not many people ever heard of it.
>>> NBC and CNN didn't talk about it much except to try to smear
>>> the whistle blowers.
>>> 
>>> The "science" consists of computer models based on phoney
>>> research, speculation and wishful thinking biased by a knee-
>>> jerk political agenda.
>>> 
>>> "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
>>> And what I mean by that it's an opportunity
>>> to do things you think you could not do before."
>>>   -Rahm Emanuel
>>> 
>>> The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
>>> crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.
>> 
>> Ah, so you deny science. OK.
>> 
>> 
> 
> "deny science".  _LAME_.  try facts instead of pejoratives.  k-thx-bubye

The fact is you show no concept of what you are talking about.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Really... given how amazingly clueless you are on the topic why do you
pretend to be knowledgeable? What is your motivation to lie?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:45:27 AM
On 09/14/15 18:53, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
>> And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.
>>
> But you show no real understanding. That is a big weakness to your claims.

when you define "understand" as "agree with you", I admit that I do not
"agree with you".


0
Big
9/16/2015 5:46:02 AM
On 09/15/15 16:13, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
> Not so. It's clear to me that electric cars can in fact do the storing you 
> refer to - if there are enough of them. :)

the problem with electric cars is that I cannot drive more than 100
miles or so [typically] without getting a charge, and what happens on a
hot day when you run the AIR CONDITIONER?  Or must we FRY like it's 1915?

even with improved battery technology, the power to weight ratio of
batteries vs GASOLINE is significantly different, even using Lithium [an
EXTREMELY dangerous substance, I might add].

People freak out about gasoline fires when a car is sufficiently
damaged.  Consider a LITHIUM FIRE.  Class D fires are the *WORST* to try
and put out.  basically back off, wait for it to stop arcing and
sparking, and fill in the crater when it finishes.

So yeah, _interesting_ if you can afford it [they're EXPENSIVE], but
good luck with re-charging every 100 miles.  I'd rather drive 400+ miles
on a single tank of gasoline.  By the time I'm done burning THAT up,
I'll have to stop and pee anyway.

[it's also bad news if you plan on commuting - imagine a traffic jam in
which people who normally drive < 100 miles round trip suddenly find
themselves using > 100 miles worth of electricity, crawling along at low
speeds and using the air conditioner so you don't COOK on an L.A.
Freeway in the summer, then SUDDENLY all those electric cars start
running out of battery, and NOW the problem is a WHOLE! LOT! WORSE!]


0
Big
9/16/2015 5:52:10 AM
On 09/14/15 23:41, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> He claims to be a super genius... but cannot use basic logic on this.
> 
>   Bob?  Bob is a SLOB.
> 

thank you!

0
Big
9/16/2015 5:52:32 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:44 PM, in article
LOGdnfeZiL1FnGTInZ2dnUU7-Yf46u6z@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 18:55, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> I suspect you will not answer this question.
> 
> I don't answer 'loaded questions'.
> 
> IT'S A TRAP!  (Adm. Ackbar)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
> 

Just added even more to the response to the gibberish on your site (and
fixed a typo):

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Notice how you list "interesting sites" - and do not even mention a single
scientific site. Why do you avoid science?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:56:42 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:46 PM, in article
LOGdnfaZiL2sn2TInZ2dnUU7-Yf46u6z@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 18:53, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
>>> And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.
>>> 
>> But you show no real understanding. That is a big weakness to your claims.
> 
> when you define "understand" as "agree with you", I admit that I do not
> "agree with you".

You say "when" as if I do. This is another straw man from you.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

That is commentary on your site. You have no clue what you are talking about
and actively avoid speaking about the views of scientists and scientific
organizations.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:57:38 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:52 PM, in article
x9ednRlG198qnmTInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/14/15 23:41, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> Gave us:
>> 
>>> He claims to be a super genius... but cannot use basic logic on this.
>> 
>>   Bob?  Bob is a SLOB.
>> 
> 
> thank you!
> 
Sigh. Just found more errors on your page. Have not even read it all... and
you go on and on with nonsense based on poor premises. But in this case I
note where you claim the world population is 5 billion.

It was that in the 1980s. Now it is more than 7 billion.

Do you get ANYTHING right in your claims?

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Seriously, before you talk about the topic TRY to learn a little about it.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 6:02:08 AM
On 9/15/15, 10:52 PM, in article
x9ednR5G1988nmTInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 16:13, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
>> Not so. It's clear to me that electric cars can in fact do the storing you
>> refer to - if there are enough of them. :)
> 
> the problem with electric cars is that I cannot drive more than 100
> miles or so [typically] without getting a charge, and what happens on a
> hot day when you run the AIR CONDITIONER?  Or must we FRY like it's 1915?
> 
> even with improved battery technology, the power to weight ratio of
> batteries vs GASOLINE is significantly different, even using Lithium [an
> EXTREMELY dangerous substance, I might add].
> 
> People freak out about gasoline fires when a car is sufficiently
> damaged.  Consider a LITHIUM FIRE.  Class D fires are the *WORST* to try
> and put out.  basically back off, wait for it to stop arcing and
> sparking, and fill in the crater when it finishes.
> 
> So yeah, _interesting_ if you can afford it [they're EXPENSIVE], but
> good luck with re-charging every 100 miles.  I'd rather drive 400+ miles
> on a single tank of gasoline.  By the time I'm done burning THAT up,
> I'll have to stop and pee anyway.
> 
> [it's also bad news if you plan on commuting - imagine a traffic jam in
> which people who normally drive < 100 miles round trip suddenly find
> themselves using > 100 miles worth of electricity, crawling along at low
> speeds and using the air conditioner so you don't COOK on an L.A.
> Freeway in the summer, then SUDDENLY all those electric cars start
> running out of battery, and NOW the problem is a WHOLE! LOT! WORSE!]

So what is your solution? And who should pay for the damage done by the
burning of fossil fuels?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 6:07:07 AM
On 09/15/15 22:41, Snit so wittily quipped:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>
> 
> Proved that it is utter gibberish.
> 

is THAT supposed to SCARE me or something?

or am I expected to do the 'hacker retaliation' of posting your WHOIS
information, which appears to have your home address in it.

"Prescott Computer Guy" - ok.

say whatever you want to on your own web site.  I do on mine.

but whatever.  I actually consider an "anti-site" or parody or satyre to
be a compliment, like "I've arrived".  And don't worry, I won't be
reading it.

thanks for drawing attention to my web site.

0
Big
9/16/2015 6:08:27 AM
On 09/15/15 23:02, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/15/15, 10:52 PM, in article
> x9ednRlG198qnmTInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/15 23:41, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> Gave us:
>>>
>>>> He claims to be a super genius... but cannot use basic logic on this.
>>>
>>>   Bob?  Bob is a SLOB.
>>>
>>
>> thank you!
>>
> Sigh. Just found more errors on your page. Have not even read it all... and
> you go on and on with nonsense based on poor premises. But in this case I
> note where you claim the world population is 5 billion.
> 
> It was that in the 1980s. Now it is more than 7 billion.
> 
> Do you get ANYTHING right in your claims?
> 
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>
> 
> Seriously, before you talk about the topic TRY to learn a little about it.
> 
> 

looks like I've got a new pet.

0
Big
9/16/2015 6:11:52 AM
On 9/15/15, 11:08 PM, in article
nrOdnfeJa9vvmmTInZ2dnUU7-Yn46u6z@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 22:41, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>
>> 
>> Proved that it is utter gibberish.
>> 
> 
> is THAT supposed to SCARE me or something?

Um, no. Are you scared?

By the way, just added some more... up to 50 comments on where your page is
utterly absurd and ignorant:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

Why don't you try to learn a little about the topic?

> or am I expected to do the 'hacker retaliation' of posting your WHOIS
> information, which appears to have your home address in it.
> 
> "Prescott Computer Guy" - ok.

Yup. But not relevant to the conversation and not a site I pointed to or
brought up.

> say whatever you want to on your own web site.  I do on mine.
> 
> but whatever.  I actually consider an "anti-site" or parody or satyre to
> be a compliment, like "I've arrived".  And don't worry, I won't be
> reading it.
> 
> thanks for drawing attention to my web site.

The question is why don't you try to learn a little about the topic?



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 6:18:01 AM
On 9/15/15, 11:11 PM, in article
nrOdnfaJa9uilWTInZ2dnUU7-Yn46u6z@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/15/15 23:02, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/15/15, 10:52 PM, in article
>> x9ednRlG198qnmTInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/14/15 23:41, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:24:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> Gave us:
>>>> 
>>>>> He claims to be a super genius... but cannot use basic logic on this.
>>>> 
>>>>   Bob?  Bob is a SLOB.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> thank you!
>>> 
>> Sigh. Just found more errors on your page. Have not even read it all... and
>> you go on and on with nonsense based on poor premises. But in this case I
>> note where you claim the world population is 5 billion.
>> 
>> It was that in the 1980s. Now it is more than 7 billion.
>> 
>> Do you get ANYTHING right in your claims?
>> 
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>
>> 
>> Seriously, before you talk about the topic TRY to learn a little about it.
>> 
>> 
> 
> looks like I've got a new pet.
> 
I am merely noting how completely wrong your claims are - you have no clue
what you are talking about.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 6:18:34 AM
On 15/09/15 19:38, Snit wrote:
> On 9/15/15, 11:31 AM, in article mt9o6o$ae7$1@news.albasani.net, "The
> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
>>> energy sources. Wow.
>>>
>>
>> I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having
>> been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.
>
> And yet you showed you did not even consider them in the idea of energy
> production.
>
Exactly. That's because I know so much about them


>


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.
0
The
9/16/2015 7:25:51 AM
in reposne to:

>> The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
>> >crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.

On 16/09/15 00:01, Snit wrote:

> Ah, so you deny science. OK.

In the most blatant no sequitur of the day.

A very poorly constructed ad hominem, to be sure.


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.
0
The
9/16/2015 7:29:01 AM
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:37:17 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

> What is relevant is you asked
>me to do a Google search (to do you a favor).

  I never did any such thing, and I made that clear several times now,
you retarded troll jackass.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/16/2015 7:32:11 AM
On 9/16/15, 12:32 AM, in article 8m6iva1n1vk1if8in3dhmgplv2h2kg7roe@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:37:17 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> What is relevant is you asked
>> me to do a Google search (to do you a favor).
> 
>   I never did any such thing, and I made that clear several times now,
> you retarded troll jackass.

You have succeeded in moving goal posts to a stupid meta-debate where you
just deny your own comments and actions.

What is your next trick?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 7:50:44 AM
On 9/16/15, 12:25 AM, in article mtb5i9$v9q$1@news.albasani.net, "The
Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 15/09/15 19:38, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/15/15, 11:31 AM, in article mt9o6o$ae7$1@news.albasani.net, "The
>> Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Um, so you do not even know about the existence of solar, wind, and other
>>>> energy sources. Wow.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I probably know about 100 times more than you do about them, it having
>>> been a study of mine for the past ten years or so.
>> 
>> And yet you showed you did not even consider them in the idea of energy
>> production.
>> 
> Exactly. That's because I know so much about them

LOL!

What relevant information do you think you know. Please, be specific.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 7:51:15 AM
On 16/09/15 00:13, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <mt89jm$qfl$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 15/09/15 05:00, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article <ju2dnYPtN4U662rInZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
>> <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>>> On 09/14/15 15:50, Bruce Sinclair so wittily quipped:
>>>>> In article <X8KdnR6i0OCSk2rInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Big Bad Bob
>>
>>>>> Get and read "sustainable energy withut the hot air" - look for sewtha.pdf.
>>>>> It's a *great* (and free) ebook with actual numbers and data (together with
>>>>> references, and much myth debunking).
>>>>>
>>>>> When you have read that, please return to the debate with some logic and
>>>>> reason. :)
>>>>
>>>> if you present it THAT way, I'd guess it's another elitist hit piece.
>>>> And I don't need to.  I've already done my OWN research.
>>>
>>> A conclusion is what we reach when we stop thinking.
>>>
>>> It's a seriously good (and easy) read. Please at least look at it before
>>> dismissing it. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> David Mackay's excellent book has got NOTHING to do with climate change.
>> It is about energy use and the possibility, or otherwise, of sustainable
>> energy sources.
>
> While that is indeed the major point of his work, there are sections on
> climate change that are useful (ie include data, numbers and references).
>
>
>> It is essentially examining the energy density of energy sources. It
>> goes far, but does not really investigate the problem of renewable
>> energy intermittency, which he hand waves away with 'storage'.
>
> Not so. It's clear to me that electric cars can in fact do the storing you
> refer to - if there are enough of them. :)

The problem is that even in every single household had an electric car 
it wouldn't store summer solar energy over the winter and it wouldn't 
run the country for more than half a day either.

And you would not be able to drive the cars either whilst they were 
being used as grid stores.

Try running the numbers that David didn't run.

That's why I said 'hand waved away' He did not run the numbers,



>
> Yes, OK that's glossed over a bit, but it's clear that something has to change
> .. and, if only people took that message away, I for one would be *really*
> happy. :)
>
>> Neither does it examine more than superficially, the cost implications.
>
> The Stern review did that years ago. We could pay for the necessary changes
> out of "growth". We still can ... and we need to pay forthe changes with
> something soon. People with children really should care ... but it seems the
> human condition (not if it costs *me* something) prevails. I suspect "we" will
> do something *after* we have to. Classic humans - short term stupid. :)

If there is anything more widely debunked as a document of truth or 
authority, it is the stern review. "We could pay for the necessary 
changes  out of "growth"." when Growth is not sustainable is as specious 
as saying we will use all our fossil furl to build windmills, and solar 
panels and batteries.

>
>
>> When you have read it, read this - not polished, but outlines the
>> essential issues.
>>
>> http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf
>> to complete the question marks hanging over renewable energy.
>
> Ther questions become very apparent when we try to put numbers on some of the
> things often talked about without them.
>
That is the point. The Lefty brain - the emotional eco-(il)logical 
aspirational brain - doesn't do numbers. People flock to the Greens or 
to Corbyn because they represent the way things *ought* to be. And 
anyone who spins up an sufficiently attractive emotional narrative gets 
their undying support. And to the Left brain,. its always someone elses 
money they are spending.

Its only when the Right brain, the pragmatic conservative rational 
scientific and technical brain starts asking the basic question of 'How 
to we get there? What will it cost? Is it actually possible? And if so 
is it really worth doing, on balance?' That the problems start. And to 
the Right brain, its always their own money that is being spent.

To so many people if something could work theoretically, its established 
fact that it will work .
>
>> All of which has nothing to do with climate change as a valid theory or not.
>
> See above.
> As to whether it's a 'theory' or not, the evidence is overwhelming. At that
> point, the doubters are really into some kind of religion (ie they don't
> "believe"), but that doesn't make the data less compelling, only tem more
> obvious silly. :)
>
>

You have that about face. The believers are into the religion, the 
doubters have mostly done the analysis.

You have to understand how really really hard it is to be forced to he 
conclusion that a very large body of the academic institutions, the 
government and the media are deliberately lying to you. The alternative 
being the science you were taught is meaningless and has no substance, 
and what counts is belief, and opinion, and there is no fact and there 
is no scientific method beyond getting enough people to support any 
claim. 97% of scientists opinion is held to beat the facts hands down. 
If 97% of scientists believe the earth is made of stale dinosaur fart, 
that is established fact, apparently. In fact they merely have to state 
that, for the right values of 'stale' 'dinosaur' 'and 'fart' it *could* 
be and the job is done enough for the Guardian and the BBC and the NY 
times to announce it as the new dogma of the Church of Science-ology.


>> Beyond illustrating that even if CO2 emissions were s serious problem
>> renewable energy is no solution to it. And thus casting doubt on those
>> who advocate such a solution that doesn't work, to a problem that
>> probably doesn't exist.
>
> Actually, the whole point of his book is to put some numbers around the
> waffle. At least the size of the problem becomes evident ... and the
> usefullness of things we can change (e.g. turning off cell phone chargers
> won't help :) ).
>

I suppose it does introduce the basic concept of quantity to vast 
swathes of people who consider themselves intelligent, but failed their 
maths O levels...;-)
>
>> Bit like Apple products really..
>
> <Chuckle>. I feel sorry for apple, as I started there back in the II+ days.
> Everything was open and people were *encouraged* to fiddle with the box.
> Things went down hill with the first Mac and have never really recovered. :)
>
>
Money is a great corrupter of men.

>
>
>
>


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.
0
The
9/16/2015 7:51:27 AM
On 9/16/15, 12:29 AM, in article mtb5o7$v9q$2@news.albasani.net, "The
Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> in reposne to:
> 
>>> The moral of Rahm's words is... if there is no
>>>> crisis, you create one.  Hence, climate change.
> 
> On 16/09/15 00:01, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Ah, so you deny science. OK.
> 
> In the most blatant no sequitur of the day.
> 
> A very poorly constructed ad hominem, to be sure.
> 

Given that the topic is a science based one, your denial of it is very much
on topic.

How about this: why don't you look at the sites of a few scientific
organizations which speak of climate change and try to learn about it?

Or don't. But if not do not lie and claim to be knowledgeable about it. That
just makes you look ignorant.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 7:52:42 AM
On 2015-09-16, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> Nevermind if you use actual science to show there's no man-made global
> warming, such as gas solubility, chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
> Even with charts and graphs that prove the point beyond doubt, the
> slogans continue.

With the rank-and-file hardcore Warmists it's a religion. Some have
even wanted to change the history books (specifically to edit out events
such as the Medieval warm period) in order to conform to their religious
beliefs. It doesn't matter how much data to the contrary you provide or
how much flawed methodology, doctoring of data, and political corruption
can be demonstrated. They've got religion!  The language and methods
Warmists employ are the same as religious kooks have always used. In their
religious fervor many almost literally want to to burn those they consider
"deniers" at the stake, torches and pitchforks at the ready.

Useful idiots, indeed.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Roger
9/16/2015 11:22:18 AM
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:50:44 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

> where you
>just deny your own comments and actions.

  I never denied my remarks.  I simply told you that they were not in
the form of a request, which you continue to claim they were, like the
retarded, illiterate putz you are.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/16/2015 3:43:08 PM
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:52:42 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>Or don't. But if not do not lie and claim to be knowledgeable about it. That
>just makes you look ignorant.

  The remark he made with regard to knowing more than you do was about
quantum mechanics, you illiterate, zero memory retard.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/16/2015 3:45:10 PM
On 9/16/15, 8:43 AM, in article 6e3jvatk9u2n1k7715l3a83r6fgm303srb@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:50:44 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> where you
>> just deny your own comments and actions.
> 
>   I never denied my remarks.  I simply told you that they were not in
> the form of a request, which you continue to claim they were, like the
> retarded, illiterate putz you are.

You now say your telling to Google something was not a request... um, did
you think it was a demand? Whatever. You are in no position to demand
anything and your denial of your own words is simply dishonest.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:24:16 PM
On 9/16/15, 8:45 AM, in article ti3jva9ggu2gt1fff8ufc8ebvtk40udb44@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:52:42 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> Or don't. But if not do not lie and claim to be knowledgeable about it. That
>> just makes you look ignorant.
> 
>   The remark he made with regard to knowing more than you do was about
> quantum mechanics, you illiterate, zero memory retard.

While this might shock you, the size of your penis is of no interest to me.
I am CERTAINLY not flopping mine out on the table for you to examine, even
if you beg.

As far as your comment in Usenet, though, when you make errors do not get so
offended or defensive when they are pointed out. We all make mistakes. It is
how we handle them that shows our character.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:27:52 PM
On 9/16/15, 4:22 AM, in article 20150916070550@news.eternal-september.org,
"Roger Blake" <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2015-09-16, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>> Nevermind if you use actual science to show there's no man-made global
>> warming, such as gas solubility, chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
>> Even with charts and graphs that prove the point beyond doubt, the
>> slogans continue.
> 
> With the rank-and-file hardcore Warmists it's a religion.

I do not know who these "Warmists" are, but I know I look to the science and
not any religion.

> Some have even wanted to change the history books (specifically to edit out
> events such as the Medieval warm period) in order to conform to their
> religious beliefs.

Who? When?

> It doesn't matter how much data to the contrary you provide or how much flawed
> methodology, doctoring of data, and political corruption can be demonstrated.
> They've got religion!  The language and methods Warmists employ are the same
> as religious kooks have always used. In their religious fervor many almost
> literally want to to burn those they consider "deniers" at the stake, torches
> and pitchforks at the ready.
> 
> Useful idiots, indeed.

Other than helping to socialize the costs of the rich and powerful what
benefit is there in denying the science? Curious what your motivation is.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 5:51:06 PM
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:24:16 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

> You are in no position to demand
>anything and your denial of your own words is simply dishonest.

  I demanded nothing and I denied nothing, you illiterate retarded twit.

 The discussion  was about GW, and you just replied to my Wolfram link
post.

  I posted a link to a google image page and you started calling it a
request for assistance.  And now your retarded brain wants to claim it
was a demand instead.  Too bad for you, as it was neither.

  Do not expect further response, stupid troll fucktard.

  It doesn't get any more retarded than you are.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/16/2015 8:56:07 PM
On 9/16/15, 1:56 PM, in article bmljva51aeomfp8abr55simnktgj8ad4c4@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:24:16 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> You are in no position to demand
>> anything and your denial of your own words is simply dishonest.
> 
>   I demanded nothing and I denied nothing, you illiterate retarded twit.

Ah, denying your denial. So you ask me to to do a Google search and when I
speak of it you jump to a meta-debate, and now are pushing an absurd
meta-meta-debate.

Wow.

You really are working hard to get away from your initial request that I do
a Google search!

>  The discussion  was about GW, and you just replied to my Wolfram link
> post.
> 
>   I posted a link to a google image page and you started calling it a
> request for assistance.

You asked me to do a Google search... and when the topic of what you hoped
to gain from this came up you realized you had no point and moved to a
meta-debate and now a meta-meta-debate. Insanity. As noted: you are working
very hard to avoid the initial conversation. You would have been better off
just noting your mistake and moving on. As it is you are making a bit of a
fool of yourself.

> And now your retarded brain wants to claim it
> was a demand instead.  Too bad for you, as it was neither.
> 
>   Do not expect further response, stupid troll fucktard.

I expect you to keep begging for attention as you try to distance yourself
from your own words. You are not the first person I have talked to online
who trolls! It is not like you are not predictable!

>   It doesn't get any more retarded than you are.

Such insults, used in a failed effort to hide your own insecurity, are also
very predictable. See: you are not unique in your trolling style.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 9:18:45 PM
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:18:45 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Gave us:

>
>You asked me to do a Google search...

  Again, you illiterate, retarded troll fuck.  I did no such thing.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/16/2015 9:28:06 PM
On 9/16/15, 2:28 PM, in article tlnjva9cscsmhbrubq2f5g4rrddqmfouij@4ax.com,
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:18:45 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>> 
>> You asked me to do a Google search...
> 
>   Again, you illiterate, retarded troll fuck.  I did no such thing.

Remember when you said:
    -----   
    Do not expect further response, stupid troll fucktard.
    ----

And I predicted your insecurity and need for attention would make you:

1) Avoid the topic of your request for me to do a Google search
2) Push insults and accusations
3) Prove you are incapable of actually stopping your pleas for attention

Well, you have proved me correct. Thank you, I suppose.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/16/2015 9:38:21 PM
On 09/16/15 14:38, Snit so wittily quipped:
> 3) Prove you are incapable of actually stopping your pleas for attention


is this a case of those in glass houses throwing stones?

it's fun to watch trolls try to out-troll one another!

0
Big
9/17/2015 6:26:49 AM
On 09/16/15 10:51, Snit so wittily quipped:
> On 9/16/15, 4:22 AM, in article 20150916070550@news.eternal-september.org,
> "Roger Blake" <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-16, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>> Nevermind if you use actual science to show there's no man-made global
>>> warming, such as gas solubility, chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
>>> Even with charts and graphs that prove the point beyond doubt, the
>>> slogans continue.
>>
>> With the rank-and-file hardcore Warmists it's a religion.
> 
> I do not know who these "Warmists" are, but I know I look to the science and
> not any religion.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!  you funny guy!

>> It doesn't matter how much data to the contrary you provide or how much flawed
>> methodology, doctoring of data, and political corruption can be demonstrated.
>> They've got religion!  The language and methods Warmists employ are the same
>> as religious kooks have always used. In their religious fervor many almost
>> literally want to to burn those they consider "deniers" at the stake, torches
>> and pitchforks at the ready.
>>
>> Useful idiots, indeed.
> 
> Other than helping to socialize the costs of the rich and powerful what
> benefit is there in denying the science? Curious what your motivation is.
> 

"socialize the costs of the rich and powerful."  make sure your tin-foil
hat is firmly in place when you make these claims, otherwise the
illuminati might try to mind-control you


0
Big
9/17/2015 6:28:41 AM
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:26:49 -0700, Big Sad Blob
<BigSadBlob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:

>On 09/16/15 14:38, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> 3) Prove you are incapable of actually stopping your pleas for attention
>
>
>is this a case of those in glass houses throwing stones?
>
>it's fun to watch trolls try to out-troll one another!

  You are a true retard not much different than the 'style' Donald Trump
operates under.

  You know next to nothing, but make retarded claims and bullshit
pontifications all the time.

  You are about as immature as a freshly laid turd, just like Donald
Trump is.
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/17/2015 6:34:12 AM
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:28:41 -0700, Big Sad Blob
<BigSadBlob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:

>On 09/16/15 10:51, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> On 9/16/15, 4:22 AM, in article 20150916070550@news.eternal-september.org,
>> "Roger Blake" <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-16, Big Sad Blob <BigSadBlob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>>> Nevermind if you use actual science to show there's no man-made global
>>>> warming, such as gas solubility, chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
>>>> Even with charts and graphs that prove the point beyond doubt, the
>>>> slogans continue.
>>>
>>> With the rank-and-file hardcore Warmists it's a religion.
>> 
>> I do not know who these "Warmists" are, but I know I look to the science and
>> not any religion.
>
>HA HA HA HA HA HA!  you funny guy!
>
>>> It doesn't matter how much data to the contrary you provide or how much flawed
>>> methodology, doctoring of data, and political corruption can be demonstrated.
>>> They've got religion!  The language and methods Warmists employ are the same
>>> as religious kooks have always used. In their religious fervor many almost
>>> literally want to to burn those they consider "deniers" at the stake, torches
>>> and pitchforks at the ready.
>>>
>>> Useful idiots, indeed.
>> 
>> Other than helping to socialize the costs of the rich and powerful what
>> benefit is there in denying the science? Curious what your motivation is.
>> 
>
>"socialize the costs of the rich and powerful."  make sure your tin-foil
>hat is firmly in place when you make these claims, otherwise the
>illuminati might try to mind-control you
>

  What happened to you not responding to the troll, dumbfuck?
0
DecadentLinuxUserNum
9/17/2015 6:36:16 AM
On 09/16/15 23:34, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:26:49 -0700, Big Sad Blob
> <BigSadBlob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:
> 
>> On 09/16/15 14:38, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> 3) Prove you are incapable of actually stopping your pleas for attention
>>
>>
>> is this a case of those in glass houses throwing stones?
>>
>> it's fun to watch trolls try to out-troll one another!
> 
>   You are a true retard not much different than the 'style' Donald Trump
> operates under.

Donald Trump is AWESOME!  I hope he becomes President.

>   You know next to nothing, but make retarded claims and bullshit
> pontifications all the time.

you say that about lots of people don't you?  I think you have too many
"GOTO 10" lines.


>   You are about as immature as a freshly laid turd, just like Donald
> Trump is.

being compared to Donald Trump is an honor.  Thank you!  [now if I could
get him to invest in some of my projects...]




0
Big
9/17/2015 6:47:47 AM
On 09/16/15 23:36, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:28:41 -0700, Big Sad Blob
> <BigSadBlob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:
> 
>> On 09/16/15 10:51, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>> On 9/16/15, 4:22 AM, in article 20150916070550@news.eternal-september.org,
>>> "Roger Blake" <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-16, Big Sad Blob <BigSadBlob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
>>>>> Nevermind if you use actual science to show there's no man-made global
>>>>> warming, such as gas solubility, chemistry, physics, or mathematics.
>>>>> Even with charts and graphs that prove the point beyond doubt, the
>>>>> slogans continue.
>>>>
>>>> With the rank-and-file hardcore Warmists it's a religion.
>>>
>>> I do not know who these "Warmists" are, but I know I look to the science and
>>> not any religion.
>>
>> HA HA HA HA HA HA!  you funny guy!
>>
>>>> It doesn't matter how much data to the contrary you provide or how much flawed
>>>> methodology, doctoring of data, and political corruption can be demonstrated.
>>>> They've got religion!  The language and methods Warmists employ are the same
>>>> as religious kooks have always used. In their religious fervor many almost
>>>> literally want to to burn those they consider "deniers" at the stake, torches
>>>> and pitchforks at the ready.
>>>>
>>>> Useful idiots, indeed.
>>>
>>> Other than helping to socialize the costs of the rich and powerful what
>>> benefit is there in denying the science? Curious what your motivation is.
>>>
>>
>> "socialize the costs of the rich and powerful."  make sure your tin-foil
>> hat is firmly in place when you make these claims, otherwise the
>> illuminati might try to mind-control you
>>
> 
>   What happened to you not responding to the troll, dumbfuck?
> 

never do what is expected - Miyamoto Musashi

0
Big
9/17/2015 6:49:14 AM
On 9/16/15, 11:26 PM, in article
YbGdncIM05HdwGfInZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/16/15 14:38, Snit so wittily quipped:
>> 3) Prove you are incapable of actually stopping your pleas for attention
> 
> is this a case of those in glass houses throwing stones?
> 
> it's fun to watch trolls try to out-troll one another!

You accuse me of pleading for attention because I have noted:

1) You make claims about Fox "news" which studies do not support
2) You make claims about climate change which are insane, as shown
   here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

You cannot back your claims and are bothered by it.




-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/17/2015 5:24:49 PM
On 9/16/15, 11:47 PM, in article
YbGdnfoM05G3_2fInZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

> On 09/16/15 23:34, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:26:49 -0700, Big Sad Blob
>> <BigSadBlob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:
>> 
>>> On 09/16/15 14:38, Snit so wittily quipped:
>>>> 3) Prove you are incapable of actually stopping your pleas for attention
>>> 
>>> 
>>> is this a case of those in glass houses throwing stones?
>>> 
>>> it's fun to watch trolls try to out-troll one another!
>> 
>>   You are a true retard not much different than the 'style' Donald Trump
>> operates under.
> 
> Donald Trump is AWESOME!  I hope he becomes President.
> 
>>   You know next to nothing, but make retarded claims and bullshit
>> pontifications all the time.
> 
> you say that about lots of people don't you?  I think you have too many
> "GOTO 10" lines.
> 
> 
>>   You are about as immature as a freshly laid turd, just like Donald
>> Trump is.
> 
> being compared to Donald Trump is an honor.  Thank you!  [now if I could
> get him to invest in some of my projects...]
> 
> 
> 
> 

Trump has a large following of mostly uneducated white people. He is not in
any way fit to be president and is not expected by anyone in the field to
have a chance to win, despite his high numbers now.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/17/2015 5:25:54 PM
On 9/16/15, 11:49 PM, in article
YbGdnfUM05Ef_2fInZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Big Bad Bob"
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:

.... 
>>   What happened to you not responding to the troll, dumbfuck?
>> 
> 
> never do what is expected - Miyamoto Musashi
> 

I expect you to continue to run from two topics:

1) You make claims about Fox "news" which studies do not support
2) You make claims about climate change which are insane, as shown
   here: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/review-of-bobf-site.pdf>

And you will do as expected. :)

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/17/2015 5:26:35 PM
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:25:54 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Trump has a large following of mostly uneducated white people. He
> is not in any way fit to be president and is not expected by
> anyone in the field to have a chance to win, despite his high
> numbers now.

They said that about Jeremy Corbyn.
0
mechanic
9/18/2015 9:44:34 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Linux, Linux, Linux
Hi, Interested in trying Linux? Well you came to comp.os.linux.advocacy for some reason, and you probably won't stay long. Here's a list of Linux distributions to choose from. Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com Newbie friendly and good support forums. SuSE http://www.novell.com/linux Pay for some support if you're not opposed to spending a little money. Fedora Core http://fedoraproject.org If you're more comfortable with your computer, try this one out. If you get frustrated, don't give up so easy. There is a wealth of information online for whichever distro you choose....

I have Linux! I have Linux!
Ok, after two days of trying to get Windos 1900 installed and working , I sat down an hour ago and installed Linux. In an hour. Smirk. Ok, I will be honest. I did have some problems, but I believe they were of my own ignorance. 0) I started with trying to install Suse. However, I couldn't get it to install. Why? Because I didn't read the menu. There is a startup menu and the first entry is boot to harddisk. I thought that was the thing to do so I did it about 4 times. Then I gave up. However, I went back to it and subsequently realized that I should have chosen the 2nd men...

Why linux is linux
We don't destroy, we create. We don't imitate, we build. We are not a network, we are a personal OS. -- http://www.texeme.com Hi John, Attempting to Speak for Linux, You wrote: << We don't destroy, we create. We don't imitate, we build. We are not a network, we are a personal OS. >> Linux is more like this: << Like everything else, we consume and are consumed. We exchange ideas with everyone, to the point where it's almost impossible to track. We are artisans, not mass producers. >> Jeff Relf wrote: > Linux is mo...

My Linux is not your Linux
To the denizens of comp.os.linux.advocacy! So many people demonstrate in this newsgroup that they know only a Linux of Hatred and Greed, of paranoia, and of a selfish sense of entitlement. They seem always to be behaving like monkeys in reaction to human dissenters, throwing feces at one another and beating their chests pretending to know something. My Linux is not that Linux. My Linux is the Linux of Love, of sharing, friendship, community. It is a uniquely human Linux and not one for monkeys. When I speak with fellow Linux users in real life (i.e. not in the monkeyhouse of COLA) they remin...

Linux!! Linux!!
From http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.misc/about This month 16 t...@invalid.invalid 15 ahlstr...@launchmodem.com 14 goldee_loxnbag...@gmail.com 10 jhas...@newsguy.com 9 mil...@yoyo.org 9 hel...@deepsoft.com 9 hadronqu...@gmail.com 8 ronb02nos...@gmail.com 7 secret...@lxny.org 7 ignoramus8...@nospam.8345.invalid All time 5421 p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es 4508 michael+use...@www.heiming.de 3530 j...@dhh.gt.org 3066 hel...@deepsoft.com 2991 nike_jordan_...@yahoo.com.cn 2651 jdbe...@exit109.com 2474 gra...@visi.com 2216 nikejordangoo...@hotmail.com 1890 rkiesl...@mainmatte...

[News] Making Linux More Like OS X and OS X More Like Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mac OS X - Highly Customized Linux ,----[ Quote ] | Few players in the Linux arena creates their Linux distro to look like Mac OS | X or Windows.... | | Here I'm going to list some distro which looks like Mac OS. `---- http://linuxtreat.blogspot.com/2008/07/mac-os-x-highly-customized-linux.html A Linux User's Guide to Mac ,----[ Quote ] | Take a deep breath and repeat after me: A computer is just a tool. It is only | so good as it serves to make life better for users. A "better" life is | obviously not the same thing fo...

[News] Mobile Linux Runs Palm OS Applications; New 3G Linux Phones; Open Linux Phone Made More Attractive
Mobile Linux running Palm OS apps demoed ,----[ Quote ] | Access hopes ALP and its Eclipse-based Developer Suite will | provide a long-awaited forward migration path for the many | thousands of "Garnet OS" (recently renamed from "Palm OS") | applications developed throughout the decades since "Palm-Pilot" | first became a household word, in the 1980s. `---- http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2968683379.html Linux powers pair of 3G dual-mode phones ,----[ Quote ] | MontaVista says its device-oriented Linux operating system was | used in two new 3G business sma...

Linux should disown elementary OS Linux for the Scam that it is.
No Problem'o, DooFuS. I can blame it all on the Linux Mint TEXT size being = too small on my 19 inch monitor. As Moi was saying... I tried two more additional downloads of elementary OS Linux. Both of them= likewise failed. While they could have been discriminating against Moi for his ZERO contribu= tion, I will be damned if I am going to PAY GOOD money for something when t= here is no guarantee that the stupid DOWNLOAD wont fail, JUST TO FIND OUT t= hat it WONT work at all on my computer hardware, let alone whether OR NOT i= t will actually do what is being claimed. Mo...

Any Documentaion about How Linux Networking IP stack looklike between Linux PC (single NIC card) and Router with multiple Network interfaces (LAN and WAN)?
Any Documenttaion about How Linux IP Networking stack looklike bwteen Linux PC (single NIC card) and Router with multiple Network interfaces running on Linux (LAN and WAN)?. appreciated for links or some documentation. Thanks. ...

Linux Could NOT Have Invented Linux
The current view in Western technology is that Linus Torvalds invented Linux. Nothing could be further from the truth. The technical complexity and useability of Linux make it beyond the capability of what man could produce using the tools available in 1992. My theory is that Ancient Astronauts descended from the sky on 'Chariots of the Gods' and showed Linus *how* to write an Operating System. These alien visitors must have appeared as strange to the young Torvalds, and so he may have mistaken them for carpet vendors. -- w:04 On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:28:27 GMT, Erich Von ...

[News] [Linux] Network Manager Was NOT Fired Over Linux Recommendation
School District Did Not Fire Network Manager For Recommending Linux ,----[ Quote ] | I emailed the writer of that same article to ask if Curtis Mason was | really fired for recommending Linux. The reply confirmed my suspicion... | | [...] | | Lets not get into sensationalistic hissy fits, that?s reserved only | for Microsoft. `---- http://www.techybytes.com/school-district-did-not-fire-network-manager-for-recommending-linux/ Related: District to save money by switching computers to Linux ,----[ Quote ] | Hyland said the district hopes to get all of its computers | running Linux exclusi...

Linux, linux, you mutter...
Vagrants, scaliwags and bums. That's what you advocates are. Drunk old men, wearing jute pants in the alley. LeeLee Sobiesky looks elegant in this picture: http://www.leeleesobieski.com/pics/lld/lld12.jpg -- Kent East Hill for Bush '04 Death to Kent West Hillians !!! DEATH TO KENT WEST HILL wrote: > > Vagrants, scaliwags and bums. > > That's what you advocates are. > > Drunk old men, wearing jute pants in the alley. > > LeeLee Sobiesky looks elegant in this picture: > > http://www.leeleesobieski.com/pics/lld/lld12.jpg > What is sh...

[News] Linux, Linux, Linux at Acer (Phones and Tablets)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Acer CEO whips out iPad rival ,----[ Quote ] | Acer has shown off an Android-based iPad | alternative. `---- http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05/27/acer_shows_ipad_tablet/ Acer Gets Official with ‘Stream’ ,----[ Quote ] | Acer has created a new 3D user interface that | features animations and a 'peeling' gesture to | unlock the phone. The lock screen lets users | read information without having to open | applications and a History panel provides quick | access to often-used apps. `---- http://www.androidg...

The non-Linux Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd http://www.archhurd.org/ The Hurd aims to surpass the Unix kernel in functionality, security, and stability, while remaining largely compatible with it. Can this compete with the now Google-backed Linux kernel? taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd > > http://www.archhurd.org/ > > The Hurd aims to surpass the Unix kernel in functionality, security, and > stability, while remaining largely compatible with it. > > Can this compete with the now Google-backed Linux kernel? Yes. In a...

Web resources about - Linux-friendly network document scanner - comp.os.linux.misc

Kinivo releases a pair of inexpensive Linux-friendly USB wireless adapters
... machines with only Windows in mind. If you only use Microsoft's operating system, you should be golden. However, for nerds that like Linux (including ...

Caldera unveils user-friendly Linux
The company's new OpenLinux 2.2 package is aimed at Windows users who want to try the upstart operating system on for size. A CNET article by ...

Chromebook Pixel allows for custom bootloaders, is Linux-friendly
WiFi-only flavors of the Chromebook Pixel have only just started shipping, but if you're already itching to install Linux on one of them, you're ...

eWEEK Labs Examines SLED 11, the Microsoft-Friendly Linux
The latest release of Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, SLED 11, is probably the most Microsoft-friendly Linux desktop ever, with support ...

stcdude is Linux friendly ISP programming software for STC 8051 chips
[Andrew] picked up a handful of these big STC 8051 chips for a song and dance. The problem he has with them is the clunky VB6 programming software ...

Find the Right Linux-Friendly Single Board Computer with This List
The Raspberry Pi might be the most popular single board computer out there for Linux projects, but it's certainly not your only option . The ...

Beginner-friendly Linux distro SolusOS to shut down
Developer Ikey Doherty announced this week that work on SolusOS, a Debian-based distro aimed at beginning Linux users, would come to a halt. ...

Linux-friendly Steam Sale celebrates Valve's big Steam Machine launch
I know, I know: You’re busy with Fallout 4 and feel like you don’t need to buy another game for the rest of the year. You’re probably right. ...

Windows 8 hardware rules 'derail user-friendly Linux'
... OS will be a pain for newbies, says Red Hat bloke The question of whether Secure Boot technology in UEFI firmware could exclude Linux from ...

Broadcom makes its Wi-Fi chipsets more Linux friendly - ZDNet
Broadcom, Linux users' least loved Wi-Fi chipset vendor, has launched a new open-source driver for its latest chips.

Resources last updated: 1/25/2016 6:33:31 AM