Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #647810 > unrolled thread

Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 19:01 -0500
    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:08 -0400
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 11:46 -0500
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 16:31 -0400
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 19:38 -0500
    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 10:12 -0700
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 13:00 -0500
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 17:10 -0400
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:41 -0700
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 12:03 -0500
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:21 -0400
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 17:09 -0500
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 18:34 -0400
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 00:09 -0700
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-08-31 21:57 +0000
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 18:21 -0400
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 00:20 +0000
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 22:27 -0400
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 05:23 +0000
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:10 -0400
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 22:43 +0000
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 08:39 -0700
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 12:30 -0500
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 18:29 +0000
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 18:03 -0400
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 22:44 +0000
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 18:22 +0000
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:57 -0400
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:48 -0700
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-02 17:25 +0000
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:27 -0700
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-02 20:33 +0000
                        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 11:12 -0700
                          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-05 21:15 +0000
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 18:30 -0500
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 19:16 -0500
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 16:43 -0400
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:52 -0700
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:13 -0400
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 17:19 -0500
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 20:10 -0400
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 08:44 -0700
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:48 -0400
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 15:32 -0700
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 16:55 -0700
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 21:30 -0400
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 08:37 -0700
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:41 -0400
    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 13:49 -0700
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-30 14:30 -0700
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 20:58 -0400
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 10:24 -0700
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 10:44 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#648210

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 9/1/2017 1:23 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2017 8:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/31/2017 5:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>>>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>>>>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>>>>>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>>>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>>>>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>>>>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>>>>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>>>>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>>>>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>>>>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>>>>>>       Ed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>>>>>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>>>>>>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which global war was that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That would be WWIII, Jim.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand the concept of tense and the meaning of the word "was",
>>>> useless, babbling troll?
>>>
>>> Dear candidate for the "worst Alzheimer's symptoms of 2017" prize:
>> 
>> You may fuck off and die ad hominem spewing, asshole troll.
>> 
> Says the <snip troll drool>

You may fuck off and die ad hominem spewing, useless, asshole troll.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648133

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
> > 
> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
> 
> Which global war was that?

Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
resources, mainly oil.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648145

On 9/1/2017 10:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> []
>>>
>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>
>> Which global war was that?
> 
> Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
> resources, mainly oil.
> Ed
> 

germany for coal in europe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648158

Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/2017 10:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> []
>>>>
>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>
>>> Which global war was that?
>> 
>> Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
>> resources, mainly oil.
>> Ed
>> 
> 
> germany for coal in europe.

Does the word "Lebensraum", first popularized around 1901, mean anything
to you?

Yeah, sure, Germany killed the Jews, Romani, Poles, members of other Slavic
ethnic groups,  prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, black
people, and political opponents of the Nazis for their coal.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648202

On 9/1/2017 2:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/1/2017 10:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> []
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>>
>>>> Which global war was that?
>>>
>>> Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
>>> resources, mainly oil.
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> germany for coal in europe.
> 
> Does the word "Lebensraum", first popularized around 1901, mean anything
> to you?
> 
> Yeah, sure, Germany killed the Jews, Romani, Poles, members of other Slavic
> ethnic groups,  prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, black
> people, and political opponents of the Nazis for their coal.
> 
Come on Chimp, that wasn't about Coal and other natural resources Europe 
had, it was about "purifying" the human resources Europe had. (An idea 
"Hitler got from the Americans, natch)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648211

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 9/1/2017 2:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2017 10:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which global war was that?
>>>>
>>>> Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
>>>> resources, mainly oil.
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>
>>> germany for coal in europe.
>> 
>> Does the word "Lebensraum", first popularized around 1901, mean anything
>> to you?
>> 
>> Yeah, sure, Germany killed the Jews, Romani, Poles, members of other Slavic
>> ethnic groups,  prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, black
>> people, and political opponents of the Nazis for their coal.
>> 
> Come on Chimp, <snip troll drool>

You may fuck off and die, ad hominem spewing, useless troll.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648157

Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> []
>> > 
>> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>> 
>> Which global war was that?
> 
> Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
> resources, mainly oil.
> Ed

Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
Asia and the Pacific. 

FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
kind.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648199

On 9/1/2017 2:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> []
>>>>
>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>
>>> Which global war was that?
>>
>> Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
>> resources, mainly oil.
>> Ed
> 
> Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
> Asia and the Pacific.
> 
> FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
> kind.
> 
> 
Bottom line, Ed. YOU are a moron, and Chimp is totally right once again!

So why not just stop your worthless trolling and babbling!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648300

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 2:31:12 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > []
> >> > 
> >> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
> >> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
> >> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
> >> 
> >> Which global war was that?
> > 
> > Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
> > resources, mainly oil.
> > Ed
> 
> Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
> Asia and the Pacific. 
> 
> FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
> kind.

except as bases to control sea lanes.
Ed
(This was interesting, but drifting off physics.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648343

Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 2:31:12 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > []
>> >> > 
>> >> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>> >> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>> >> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>> >> 
>> >> Which global war was that?
>> > 
>> > Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
>> > resources, mainly oil.
>> > Ed
>> 
>> Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
>> Asia and the Pacific. 
>> 
>> FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
>> kind.
> 
> except as bases to control sea lanes.

Which has nothing to do with your original claim and if anything goes
to prove my response.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648359

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:31:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 2:31:12 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > []
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
> >> >> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
> >> >> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Which global war was that?
> >> > 
> >> > Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
> >> > resources, mainly oil.
> >> > Ed
> >> 
> >> Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
> >> Asia and the Pacific. 
> >> 
> >> FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
> >> kind.
> > 
> > except as bases to control sea lanes.
> 
> Which has nothing to do with your original claim and if anything goes
> to prove my response.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

yes and no, Most is not All.
Just for reference I decided to check my details. 

Here is a summary:
Japan desperately needed resources, and there were only two places to get them: Siberia and the South Pacific. The Imperial Japanese Army favored going after Siberia but were forced to abandon that strategy after the disastrous 1939 Battle of Khalkhin Gol. The Imperial Japanese Navy got its way, but it had to deal the fact that the South Pacific had already been colonized. Hence the simultaneous attacks on Pearl Harbor, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and Malaya: The Japanese didn't want the Americans or the British to resist the Japanese scramble for rubber and oil. This turned out to be suicidal and a complete misreading of how the Americans would react to Pearl Harbor, but it was about 90 years in the making.
From a SLATE blog.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/07/07/what_prompted_japan_s_aggression_before_and_during_world_war_ii.html

So getting the resources also required protecting them from
the inevitable retaliation.

Japan remains resource poor which happens to be why they invested
so heavily in nuclear power, even with the resistance of many
in their country.

Nice to talk to you. Thanks for challenging me.
It forces me to check my facts.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648362

Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:31:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 2:31:12 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > []
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>> >> >> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>> >> >> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Which global war was that?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
>> >> > resources, mainly oil.
>> >> > Ed
>> >> 
>> >> Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
>> >> Asia and the Pacific. 
>> >> 
>> >> FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
>> >> kind.
>> > 
>> > except as bases to control sea lanes.
>> 
>> Which has nothing to do with your original claim and if anything goes
>> to prove my response.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> yes and no, Most is not All.

I never said it was.

> Just for reference I decided to check my details. 
> 
> Here is a summary:
> Japan desperately needed resources, and there were only two places to
> get them: Siberia and the South Pacific.

Which is far less than the areas they invaded so you have proven my
response once again.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648788

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:46:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:31:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 2:31:12 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > []
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
> >> >> >> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
> >> >> >> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Which global war was that?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
> >> >> > resources, mainly oil.
> >> >> > Ed
> >> >> 
> >> >> Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
> >> >> Asia and the Pacific. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
> >> >> kind.
> >> > 
> >> > except as bases to control sea lanes.
> >> 
> >> Which has nothing to do with your original claim and if anything goes
> >> to prove my response.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Jim Pennino
> > 
> > yes and no, Most is not All.
> 
> I never said it was.
> 
> > Just for reference I decided to check my details. 
> > 
> > Here is a summary:
> > Japan desperately needed resources, and there were only two places to
> > get them: Siberia and the South Pacific.
> 
> Which is far less than the areas they invaded so you have proven my
> response once again.
> 
Jim,
By 1942 they controlled pretty much all  of the South Pacific,
including the Philippines. So I think you are mistaken. Again.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648813

Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:46:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:31:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 2:31:12 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:01:13 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > []
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>> >> >> >> > But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>> >> >> >> > getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Which global war was that?
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Japan started the war in the Pacific because of their need for
>> >> >> > resources, mainly oil.
>> >> >> > Ed
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Right; it had nothing to do with the Imperial Japanese desire to dominate
>> >> >> Asia and the Pacific. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> FYI, most of the places Japan invaded had few natural resourses of any
>> >> >> kind.
>> >> > 
>> >> > except as bases to control sea lanes.
>> >> 
>> >> Which has nothing to do with your original claim and if anything goes
>> >> to prove my response.
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Jim Pennino
>> > 
>> > yes and no, Most is not All.
>> 
>> I never said it was.
>> 
>> > Just for reference I decided to check my details. 
>> > 
>> > Here is a summary:
>> > Japan desperately needed resources, and there were only two places to
>> > get them: Siberia and the South Pacific.
>> 
>> Which is far less than the areas they invaded so you have proven my
>> response once again.
>> 
> Jim,
> By 1942 they controlled pretty much all  of the South Pacific,
> including the Philippines. So I think you are mistaken. Again.

On the contrary, it is more to prove my response.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648222

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:41:15 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak
<edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:

>... So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
>prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
>"wasted."

Rarely do "me too" posts, but... the cost of resource-wars during the
last century, in dollars, was twelve digits long, and is near FOURTEEN
digits *thus far* in this century.

Does the phrase crazy-as-a-shithouse-rat ring any bells?

That money would have paid for lots of mirrors, windmills, PV cells,
desalination plants, research into electrolytes and catalysts.  Lots of
jobs.  Why trade blood and money for oil, water and exotic rocks?

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648231

On 9/1/2017 6:30 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:41:15 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak
> <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> ... So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
>> prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
>> "wasted."
> 
> Rarely do "me too" posts, but... the cost of resource-wars during the
> last century, in dollars, was twelve digits long, and is near FOURTEEN
> digits *thus far* in this century.
> 
> Does the phrase crazy-as-a-shithouse-rat ring any bells?
> 
> That money would have paid for lots of mirrors, windmills, PV cells,
> desalination plants, research into electrolytes and catalysts.  Lots of
> jobs.  Why trade blood and money for oil, water and exotic rocks?
> 

           all common sense, but

turn that light on to North Korea, and why are they building huge 
missiles and rockets ?

seems like they could try advance agriculture, make Korean dolls out of 
wood and sell them on the internet, anything...

But, here is a nation brainwashed into a strong personality cult based 
in communism, with hardly any electricity outside the major cities, ....

these shit house rats are in charge of the entire poor house country. 
And why are they focused on extortion ?

I think they buy the liquid rocket motors from Russia, under the table. 
they are very hard to build.

Im just expanding upon your post of lost opportunity, and reasons why 
that happens.

also we have example of Obama and Solyndra $535 million

bad decisions, bad management, how to fix that one. (same with starting 
wars, NK economic model, .)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647905

On 8/30/2017 1:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>
>>
>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>
> []
>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>> by factors outside our control.
>>
>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>> a day worldwide, wasted."
> 
> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.

Hey solar and wind have their uses. Weather stations on top of mountains
or bird chopping. But dumb greens don't do quantity. They have no idea 
how much pollution covering Texas with solar panels will cause or what 
disturbing wind patterns with propellers may due to climate. It's all 
just pie in the sky fantasy which is not science. Nobody (not even 
greens is ready to go back to growing tulips with windmills or using 
renewable wind to power shipping across the ocean. Those things are as 
proven failures as communism.

> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.

Obviously. All the energy here is from the sun. But one can't simply say 
lets pass a law to eliminate all the things that are finite like fossil 
fuels and figure like "gun free zones" that all your problems will then 
magically be gone. Such fantasies are simple nonsense. What is needed is 
a PLAN that does not destroy current civilization and return to a new 
dark age. And that takes REAL thinking not fantasies. Only a moron would 
try to schedule an invention (though I've seen a number of morons try) 
On such and such a date we will invent the solution to renewable energy! 
Yeah sure. We don't need "Infinitely renewable" energy. We only need to 
find viable ways to get along until the problems are finally solved.  A 
return to Ox carts is NOT viable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648022

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 4:43:10 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 8/30/2017 1:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
> >> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
> >> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
> >> vastly exaggerated in error.
> >>
> > []
> >> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
> >> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
> >> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
> >> a day worldwide, wasted."
> > 
> > False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
> > and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
> > They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
> 
> Hey solar and wind have their uses. Weather stations on top of mountains
> or bird chopping. But dumb greens don't do quantity. They have no idea 
> how much pollution covering Texas with solar panels will cause or what 
> disturbing wind patterns with propellers may due to climate. It's all 
> just pie in the sky fantasy which is not science. Nobody (not even 
> greens is ready to go back to growing tulips with windmills or using 
> renewable wind to power shipping across the ocean. Those things are as 
> proven failures as communism.
> 
> > We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
> > that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
> > last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
> > compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
> 
> Obviously. All the energy here is from the sun. But one can't simply say 
> lets pass a law to eliminate all the things that are finite like fossil 
> fuels and figure like "gun free zones" that all your problems will then 
> magically be gone. Such fantasies are simple nonsense. What is needed is 
> a PLAN that does not destroy current civilization and return to a new 
> dark age. And that takes REAL thinking not fantasies. Only a moron would 
> try to schedule an invention (though I've seen a number of morons try) 
> On such and such a date we will invent the solution to renewable energy! 
> Yeah sure. We don't need "Infinitely renewable" energy. We only need to 
> find viable ways to get along until the problems are finally solved.  A 
> return to Ox carts is NOT viable.

Boy, some issues really bring out strong feelings in some folks.

Was I advocating for communism? no
Was I proposing a single solution? no
Was I defending these renewable sources as pollution free? no
Did I propose a law of any kind? no
Was I advocating for a return to primitive living? no
Did I suggest solar panels or wind turbines are
 the one and only solution? NO

benj, I actually agree with your final point:
>  We don't need "Infinitely renewable" energy. We only need to 
> find viable ways to get along until the problems are finally solved.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648065

On 8/31/2017 12:52 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 4:43:10 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> On 8/30/2017 1:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>
>>> []
>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>
>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>
>> Hey solar and wind have their uses. Weather stations on top of mountains
>> or bird chopping. But dumb greens don't do quantity. They have no idea
>> how much pollution covering Texas with solar panels will cause or what
>> disturbing wind patterns with propellers may due to climate. It's all
>> just pie in the sky fantasy which is not science. Nobody (not even
>> greens is ready to go back to growing tulips with windmills or using
>> renewable wind to power shipping across the ocean. Those things are as
>> proven failures as communism.
>>
>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>
>> Obviously. All the energy here is from the sun. But one can't simply say
>> lets pass a law to eliminate all the things that are finite like fossil
>> fuels and figure like "gun free zones" that all your problems will then
>> magically be gone. Such fantasies are simple nonsense. What is needed is
>> a PLAN that does not destroy current civilization and return to a new
>> dark age. And that takes REAL thinking not fantasies. Only a moron would
>> try to schedule an invention (though I've seen a number of morons try)
>> On such and such a date we will invent the solution to renewable energy!
>> Yeah sure. We don't need "Infinitely renewable" energy. We only need to
>> find viable ways to get along until the problems are finally solved.  A
>> return to Ox carts is NOT viable.
> 
> Boy, some issues really bring out strong feelings in some folks.
> 
> Was I advocating for communism? no
> Was I proposing a single solution? no
> Was I defending these renewable sources as pollution free? no
> Did I propose a law of any kind? no
> Was I advocating for a return to primitive living? no
> Did I suggest solar panels or wind turbines are
>   the one and only solution? NO

Then you need to distinguish your views from those widely disseminated 
by your fellow warmballers. Hopefully you are NOT one of them and 
actually are willing to think about viable solutions to real problems 
rather than wishing and politics which as you know rarely solves 
anything. So do you favor the Paris Accords? Do you agree that CO2 
causes global warming which is endangering our grandchildren? To you 
agree that a massive energy tax used to find ways to store CO2 is our 
only hope? Inquiring minds want to know.

> benj, I actually agree with your final point:
>>   We don't need "Infinitely renewable" energy. We only need to
>> find viable ways to get along until the problems are finally solved.
> 
> Ed
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648072

On 8/31/2017 4:13 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 12:52 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 4:43:10 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2017 1:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have 
>>>>> been
>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>
>>>> []
>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion 
>>>>> dollars
>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>
>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>
>>> Hey solar and wind have their uses. Weather stations on top of mountains
>>> or bird chopping. But dumb greens don't do quantity. They have no idea
>>> how much pollution covering Texas with solar panels will cause or what
>>> disturbing wind patterns with propellers may due to climate. It's all
>>> just pie in the sky fantasy which is not science. Nobody (not even
>>> greens is ready to go back to growing tulips with windmills or using
>>> renewable wind to power shipping across the ocean. Those things are as
>>> proven failures as communism.

>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>
>>> Obviously. All the energy here is from the sun. But one can't simply say
>>> lets pass a law to eliminate all the things that are finite like fossil
>>> fuels and figure like "gun free zones" that all your problems will then
>>> magically be gone. Such fantasies are simple nonsense. What is needed is
>>> a PLAN that does not destroy current civilization and return to a new
>>> dark age. And that takes REAL thinking not fantasies. Only a moron would
>>> try to schedule an invention (though I've seen a number of morons try)
>>> On such and such a date we will invent the solution to renewable energy!
>>> Yeah sure. We don't need "Infinitely renewable" energy. We only need to
>>> find viable ways to get along until the problems are finally solved.  A
>>> return to Ox carts is NOT viable.

>> Boy, some issues really bring out strong feelings in some folks.
>>
>> Was I advocating for communism? no
>> Was I proposing a single solution? no
>> Was I defending these renewable sources as pollution free? no
>> Did I propose a law of any kind? no
>> Was I advocating for a return to primitive living? no
>> Did I suggest solar panels or wind turbines are
>>   the one and only solution? NO
> 
> Then you need to distinguish your views from those widely disseminated 
> by your fellow warmballers. Hopefully you are NOT one of them and 
> actually are willing to think about viable solutions to real problems 
> rather than wishing and politics which as you know rarely solves 
> anything. So do you favor the Paris Accords? Do you agree that CO2 
> causes global warming which is endangering our grandchildren? To you 
> agree that a massive energy tax used to find ways to store CO2 is our 
> only hope? Inquiring minds want to know.


one can store extra CO2 by feeding it into a Grow House, the plants will 
grow huge, nice profet, and then people smoke it, and the CO2 comes back 
out again.  however, you kept that nasty CO2 off the streets for about 
the time it takes to grow a plant, processing and storage time, etc. 
Extra CO2 can be used in soft drinks, pressurized bug spray, and killing 
all the bugs in the Grow House.


> 
>> benj, I actually agree with your final point:
>>>   We don't need "Infinitely renewable" energy. We only need to
>>> find viable ways to get along until the problems are finally solved.
>>
>> Ed
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web