In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:
Oh, bad luck Plowie - I thought everyone in Lunnun had teenybopper
neighbours with nipple rings and a penchant for topless sunbathing on
nearby flat roofs!

Plowie lives in a house with a flat roof? In rainy little old London,
England? Now we know he is an engineer: efficiency above common sense!

The house itself has a conventional pitched roof being a Victorian design.
But I do indeed have a roof terrace above the rear addition. Designed by
myself. Bitumen on marine ply and faced with GRP concrete tiles. A real
sun trap as it faces south. On the day the sun shines, obviously.

It's not difficult to construct a decent flat roof - only costly. And of
course it should never be truly flat.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...


Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, who had his
career ruined for exposing the lies of the environmental lobby.


Or the man who gained fame and book sales from telling businessmen,
politicians and the public what they wanted to hear.

David.

David Looser wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...


Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, who had his
career ruined for exposing the lies of the environmental lobby.


Or the man who gained fame and book sales from telling businessmen,
politicians and the public what they wanted to hear.

The man who pointed out that the official statistics do not support
the doomsaying of the environmentalists, that therefore they have no
right to claim that global warming is a scientifically based fear.

One simple example. If you have the Gore video, check where he stands
in front of a stage-length graph and tells us how CO2 emissions cause
global warming. Except the graph, and all the official statistics from
the IPCC, show that global warming precedes CO2 emissions. That's all
the proof we need that we had a lucky escape that the moron Gore
wasn't elected to the hot seat in Washington. (It's even worse if he
lies knowingly and is making money out of his carbon trading credits
scheme. One is reminded of a fantasy by Richard Condon that
Prohibition was a huge wheeze by a guy who had laid in enough booze to
get very rich out of illegally supplying the illegal substance...) On
that sort of "science" I don't want a single buck of my tax money
spent. That is the point Lomborg made again and again and again,
roundabout 800 pages of a review of the literature of the "scientific"
doomsayers, with the slt every time: they lied about the numbers.

I first called the bull**** of these people bull**** when still in my
teens I wrote a newspaper column that never failed to mention the hole
in the ozone layer -- that they then earnestly assured us would cause
the world to FREEZE. Nobody ever explained why the same hysterical
dumbos next hysterically misinterpreted some shortterm trends in
temperature rise and started forecasting that we would all die in the
HEATSTORM. In 1973 in the middle of the Oil Recession, I pointed out
that the world had 440 years of oil left, double the 220 years since
the the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (the inference is that
those who think we won't find a new source of energy in so much time
must think we're all stupid),and that all the price increase meant was
that more oil already known about could be economically recovered.
Today there are more known oil reserves at $100 a barrel than there
was a generation ago at $35 a barrel and vastly more than there was a
half-century ago at $10 a barrel. Look it up: you will be amazed.

That's what Lomborg did. He looked it up instead of just being an
impressionable, credulous fool like you.

Andre "Show me the numbers" Jute
God, I love statistics (for separating the fools from the survivors)

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...


David Looser wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...


Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, who had his
career ruined for exposing the lies of the environmental lobby.


Or the man who gained fame and book sales from telling businessmen,
politicians and the public what they wanted to hear.

The man who pointed out that the official statistics do not support
the doomsaying of the environmentalists, that therefore they have no
right to claim that global warming is a scientifically based fear.

Who are these "environmentalists"?. There are a lot of scientist involved in
environmental research these days, and no, they don't all agree with each
other, far from it. There is a consensus (fully supported by the statistics)
that the world is getting warmer, indeed recent statistics suggest that the
process may be happening even faster than had been predicted. The recent
summer loss of arctic sea ice, unprecedented in historical time, exceeded
expectations.

One simple example. If you have the Gore video,

I'm not really interested in the Gore video. He's not a scientist and is a
Johnny-come-lately to the environmental field.

That's all
the proof we need that we had a lucky escape that the moron Gore
wasn't elected to the hot seat in Washington.

Instead we got the moron Bush. Mr "the US economy is more important than the
global environment", and Mr "let's invade Iraq while we can use 9/11 as an
excuse" Bush. Gore couldn't have been worse.

I first called the bull**** of these people bull**** when still in my
teens I wrote a newspaper column that never failed to mention the hole
in the ozone layer -- that they then earnestly assured us would cause
the world to FREEZE.

WHO "earnestly assured us it would cause the world to FREEZE"? I've read
plenty about the ozone hole, never have I heard that one before.

Nobody ever explained why the same hysterical
dumbos next hysterically misinterpreted some shortterm trends in
temperature rise and started forecasting that we would all die in the
HEATSTORM. In 1973 in the middle of the Oil Recession, I pointed out
that the world had 440 years of oil left,

You pointed that out? Where did you get that data from? Not even the most
head-in-the-sand estimates that I have seen have suggested anything like
that amount.


That's what Lomborg did. He looked it up instead of just being an
impressionable, credulous fool like you.

You can call me "an impressionable, credulous fool" if you like. It seems a
seriously over-the-top reaction to my expressing some doubt about your
version of what happened to Lomberg. Lomberg is a propagandist. Sure he's
good at making the stats appear to support his case, but then so do his
opponents.

Andre "Show me the numbers" Jute
God, I love statistics (for separating the fools from the survivors)

Statistics are only as good as the science behind them. Even then they can
be presented in a partial way so as to give a inaccurate picture, in this
field both sides accuse the other of doing this. I see no more reason to
believe Lomberg than I do those he criticises, who are just as able as he is
to use the stats to support their case as he is. Unless you have real,
hands-on, knowledge of what you are talking about (and I thought you were
something to do with audio, not an environmental scientist) your opinion
means no more than mine.

David.

On Jan 11, 8:47*am, "David Looser" wrote:
You can call me "an impressionable, credulous fool" if you like. It seems a
seriously over-the-top reaction to my expressing some doubt about your
version of what happened to Lomberg. Lomberg is a propagandist. Sure he's
good at making the stats appear to support his case, but then so do his
opponents.

I agree, if it is only a matter of interpretation, a little light
bandinage between statisticians to while away the boring hours between
filling in eurogrant applications for envirofunds, there's no call for
namecalling. I apologise for calling you a "credulous fool". I mistook
you for one of "the committed".

Andre Jute
Do your duty by society today: kick a Green in the goolies

Andre Jute wrote:

global warming. Except the graph, and all the official statistics from
the IPCC, show that global warming precedes CO2 emissions.


Hiya Andre. I'm normally a lurker here, but can't resist jumping in to
comment. You are wrong in your conclusion that global warming does not
result from CO2 emissions.



The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years
to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that
CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year
trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by
CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2
could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the
first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.
Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's
orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to
affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation
slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable
sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some
(currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to
warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later.
Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping
properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages
should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results
from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier
once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other
greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full
glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about
global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2
rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time
required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2
might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released
when the climate warms.]



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/


Jo

Hey, Jo, I enjoyed reading your clever wriggling in your efforts to
make plainasthenoseonyourface statistics say something else than what
they plainly say. But, in the end, when one series lags another and
there is a causal connection, the plain truth is always that the
lagged series, in this case CO2 levels in the atmosphere, are caused
by the leading series, in this case global warming.

Repeat: Global warming causes CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions do not,
repeat not, cause global warming. Whole "environmentally concerned"
empires fall on that truth.

We should note that many of the scientist whose names the IPCC
attached to these lies as "lead authors" have told us they wrote
exactly the opposite, that they even tried to sue to get their names
removed from these lying IPCC reports.

Your wriggling reminds me of the Marxists when I was young, who would
declare every time they lost an argument -- and they lost all
arguments because their model of human behaviour was fatally flawed --
that there had been an anomaly in the statistics... And they blithely
assumed that every anomaly would favour their side, as if the very
statistics belonged to them... They would look so hurt when I nailed
their feet to the floor, since it wasn't PC to contradict them, as now
it isn't PC to point out that the whole environmental thing is one
huge confidence trick based on a fundamental lie (global warming) and
a gross immorality (the precautionary "principle").

Stop lurking, man (or woman, if that sort of Jo). Anyone as glib as
you will be forgiven anything short of murder, and you can probably
talk your way out of murder as well.

Andre Jute
Economists, sophisters and spokespersons for the President, what do
they all have in common?

On Jan 19, 4:40*pm, "Jo" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

global warming. Except the graph, and all the official statistics from
the IPCC, show that global warming precedes CO2 emissions.

Hiya Andre. I'm normally a lurker here, but can't resist jumping in to
comment. You are wrong in your conclusion that global warming does not
result from CO2 emissions.



The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years
to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that
CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year
trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by
CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2
could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the
first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.
Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's
orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to
affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation
slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable
sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some
(currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to
warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later.
Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping
properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages
should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results
from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier
once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other
greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full
glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about
global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2
rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time
required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2
might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released
when the climate warms.]



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

Jo

Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, Jo, I enjoyed reading your clever wriggling in your efforts to
make plainasthenoseonyourface statistics say something else than what
they plainly say. But, in the end, when one series lags another and
there is a causal connection, the plain truth is always that the
lagged series, in this case CO2 levels in the atmosphere, are caused
by the leading series, in this case global warming.


Yes, global warming events can be triggered by factors other than CO2
emissions. For example, many of these trigger events were small increases of
solar flux due to Milankovitch cycles. However, once an initial warming has
occurred and caused some greenhouse enhancing CO2 release there are several
strong positive feedback systems which ensure that the temperatures and CO2
levels will continue to rise long after the initial trigger event has ended.

The current trigger event is, itself, a significant release of CO2 caused by
human activities.

Repeat: Global warming causes CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions do not,
repeat not, cause global warming. Whole "environmentally concerned"
empires fall on that truth.


Repeating something does not make it true.

The greenhouse properties of CO2 can easily be demonstrated in any
reasonably equipped physics lab and are also well explained at the molecular
level. So, perhaps you could explain the mechanism that prevents CO2, a
known greenhouse gas, from acting as a greenhouse gas ?

Jo

Jo wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, Jo, I enjoyed reading your clever wriggling in your efforts to
make plainasthenoseonyourface statistics say something else than what
they plainly say. But, in the end, when one series lags another and
there is a causal connection, the plain truth is always that the
lagged series, in this case CO2 levels in the atmosphere, are caused
by the leading series, in this case global warming.


Yes, global warming events can be triggered by factors other than CO2
emissions. For example, many of these trigger events were small increases of
solar flux due to Milankovitch cycles. However, once an initial warming has
occurred and caused some greenhouse enhancing CO2 release there are several
strong positive feedback systems which ensure that the temperatures and CO2
levels will continue to rise long after the initial trigger event has ended.

Okay. So now you admit Mother Nature causes global warming, which is
what the statistics tell us.

The current trigger event is, itself, a significant release of CO2 caused by
human activities.

Prove it. The actual fact is that there is zero correlation between
high levels of human activity and global temperature and that the
Greenies try to make their lies stick by choosing tiny shortrun
ripples which fade into the background noise of all statistics when
relevant long-term series are considered.

Repeat: Global warming causes CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions do not,
repeat not, cause global warming. Whole "environmentally concerned"
empires fall on that truth.

Repeating something does not make it true.

Repetition is required because you appear to think that global warming
is caused by CO2 emissions which happened 700 years *after* the global
warming you are trying to claim it caused. There's dumb, and there's
dumber, and there're environmentalists, who are off the scale of
dumbness.

The greenhouse properties of CO2 can easily be demonstrated in any
reasonably equipped physics lab and are also well explained at the molecular
level. So, perhaps you could explain the mechanism that prevents CO2, a
known greenhouse gas, from acting as a greenhouse gas ?

It's for this sort of irrelevant smoke-blowing and incompetent
weaseling that I compare environmentalists to their cousins in
irrationality and deceit, the marxists. The question is not whether
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but whether it initiates global warming or
whether global warming releases the CO2. Clearly, the statistics tell
us global warming from solar activity releases the CO2. To say
different is to lie, and the statistics prove that the
environmentalists have been deliberately and systematically lying for
decades.

The vastly destructive Kyoto Agreement is based on this lie; the money
spent on that lie for Kyoto alone will cause hundreds of millions to
starve when we could have fed them and lifted them out of poverty and
disease and still have had some money left over for AIDS research.

Even after you prove, which you haven't yet, that CO2 causes global
warming, you still have to prove people are responsible. The
statistics tell us that humans are by far not the greatest producers
of greenhouse gases (cows probably are...). Nor can greenhouse gas
levels be linked to periods of greater human activity -- the
statistics give the lie to that claim.

Your entire environmental belief is unscientificically based on faith
alone, Jo; well, actually, also on a whole scad of shameful lies. And
it is motivated by the same despicable urge that drove the Marxists,
the desire to control the actions of your fellow humans without
submitting yourself, because you know that on the (non-existent)
merits of your argument you are unelectable, to democractic process
and scrutiny.

Jo

Personally, I think the environmentalists are a worse danger to the
future of humanity than a few thousand disturbed ragheads; we have a
"Muslim terrorist threat" only because the Americans overreacted to
9/11, hardly on a world scale a significant body count. We have been
successfully putting down raghead fanatics for centuries without ever
breaking sweat but environmentalism is a virulent disease with which
we have infected ourselves, caused by the same tendency to wallow in
vicarious guilt that turned the intellectual classes commie for most
of the last century, including well after it became abundantly clear
to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Marxism was built
on a big, murderous lie. Environmentalism stands on the same cusp as
Communism circa 1937, where the intelligent and observant can already
see the lie but the destruction and the cost in lives is still veiled
except to those who study the lessons of history with open minds.

Andre Jute
People before control freaks

PS Hands up those who think I should cut Jo a break because she's a
girl. Now hands up those who think I should step on Jo hard because
women are intrinsically more intelligent than men and therefore more
despicable when they weasel like Jo does. Now hands up the vast
majority who think I should stomp Jo terminally because a girl has no
place on an audio conference... a right bunch of fascists you are!

Hands up if you'd like Jute to stop writing!

In fairness, there always seems to be someone in his role for every
forum.

The interesting part about global warming (for whatever the reason) is
that some places will be getting worse and some better as a result of
it.

I've never seen a projected map of the areas likely to improve as a
result of global warming. I understand Greenland might become green
again.