Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista - Linux ; Hadron wrote: > > Almost certainly that nutter "Oldtech" again. Waving his Ubuntu CDs > around in Shopping malls. "Linux processes are 50000 time faster than > Windows. Where does COLA get them from?!?!?!? Great1/Wise1/Sage1/Oldtech/Nerdwizard/AHappyCamper/pberry26 is the King of Outlandish ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 138

Thread: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

  1. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Hadron wrote:
    >
    > Almost certainly that nutter "Oldtech" again. Waving his Ubuntu CDs
    > around in Shopping malls. "Linux processes are 50000 time faster than
    > Windows. Where does COLA get them from?!?!?!?



    Great1/Wise1/Sage1/Oldtech/Nerdwizard/AHappyCamper/pberry26 is the King of
    Outlandish Claims.


    http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354...511573&start=0

    "My choice is http:/pclinuxos.com for my 1200 schools, businesses,
    charities, and children, each year!"



  2. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Kier writes:

    > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:46:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> ____/ Kier on Sunday 25 November 2007 13:05 : \____
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:00:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> It never ceases to amaze me how many people blindly accept, defend and even
    >>>> encourage some of the most broken, corrupt, and unethical things that we
    >>>> have ruining our **world** (not just the human race, aka "society"). And you
    >>>> know
    >>>
    >>> I'm not defending it. Please stop putting words in my mouth, Roy. Of
    >>> course it's bad and should be stopped. Just not by the methods described
    >>> in the original post, which helps no one.

    >>
    >> Sorry, Kier, if I misinterpreted or misrepresented. I wasn't my intention.

    >
    > Thanks, Roy. Apology accepted :-)


    Oh boy....

  3. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    "SW" writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> Almost certainly that nutter "Oldtech" again. Waving his Ubuntu CDs
    >> around in Shopping malls. "Linux processes are 50000 time faster than
    >> Windows. Where does COLA get them from?!?!?!?

    >
    >
    > Great1/Wise1/Sage1/Oldtech/Nerdwizard/AHappyCamper/pberry26 is the King of
    > Outlandish Claims.
    >
    >
    > http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354...511573&start=0
    >
    > "My choice is http:/pclinuxos.com for my 1200 schools, businesses,
    > charities, and children, each year!"
    >


    That sounds like him alright. I caught him bigging it up in the Ubuntu
    forum with his usual concocted "stories" and bull**** talking about things he
    appeared to know absolutely nothing about. He got in quite a strop when
    corrected and flounced off for another short break while he made up some
    more stories.

    --
    Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.

  4. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    >"Hadron" wrote:
    >>
    >> chrisv writes:
    >>>
    >>> If one can defend oneself, one should ignore the bullies and thugs who
    >>> prey on those who cannot defend themselves?
    >>>
    >>> You filth.

    >>
    >> Chrisv sees himself as a fighter for the cause. LOL. I don't know many
    >> battles that were won by the "defender of the faith" saying "**** you
    >> filth *plonk*" and then hiding behind his kill file. Yup that's really
    >> defending the weaker targets eh chrisv?


    Believe whatever you want about whether or not what I do "helps",
    asshole, but at least I'm not defending the bullies and thugs, like
    you and "curious" do...


  5. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >"Hadron" wrote:>
    >>
    >> Chrisv sees himself as a fighter for the cause. LOL. I don't know many
    >> battles that were won by the "defender of the faith" saying "**** you
    >> filth
    >> *plonk*" and then hiding behind his kill file. Yup that's really
    >> defending the weaker targets eh chrisv?
    >>

    >Curiously, his plonker seems to fail him time and again. I get plonked and
    >then there he is again with his opinion.


    You are lying again, rat. My "plonker" works fine.

    >Perhaps he is using a home-made
    >Linux plonker and it is not up to commercial standards


    Ironic, considering your M$ crapware again mangled the quoted text.


  6. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    chrisv wrote:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>"Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.
    >>>

    >>Vis'-a-vis' chrisv, that can happen to anyone.

    >
    > Only if it's well-deserved.


    As far as amicus_curious aka billwg aka Bill Weisgerber, it is *well* deserved.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  7. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    chrisv writes:

    >>"Hadron" wrote:
    >>>
    >>> chrisv writes:
    >>>>
    >>>> If one can defend oneself, one should ignore the bullies and thugs who
    >>>> prey on those who cannot defend themselves?
    >>>>
    >>>> You filth.
    >>>
    >>> Chrisv sees himself as a fighter for the cause. LOL. I don't know many
    >>> battles that were won by the "defender of the faith" saying "**** you
    >>> filth *plonk*" and then hiding behind his kill file. Yup that's really
    >>> defending the weaker targets eh chrisv?

    >
    > Believe whatever you want about whether or not what I do "helps",
    > asshole, but at least I'm not defending the bullies and thugs, like
    > you and "curious" do...
    >


    What bullies and thugs? The only one bullying and threatening here
    appears to be you.

    --
    En casa de herrero, cuchillo de palo.
    -- Refr√°n.

  8. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Hadron wrote:

    > Kier writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:46:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> ____/ Kier on Sunday 25 November 2007 13:05 : \____
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:00:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> It never ceases to amaze me how many people blindly accept, defend and
    >>>>> even encourage some of the most broken, corrupt, and unethical things
    >>>>> that we have ruining our **world** (not just the human race, aka
    >>>>> "society"). And you know
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not defending it. Please stop putting words in my mouth, Roy. Of
    >>>> course it's bad and should be stopped. Just not by the methods
    >>>> described in the original post, which helps no one.
    >>>
    >>> Sorry, Kier, if I misinterpreted or misrepresented. I wasn't my
    >>> intention.

    >>
    >> Thanks, Roy. Apology accepted :-)

    >
    > Oh boy....


    Yes, Hadron, you see actions of people you will never understand.
    People who apologize, and who accept apologies.

    *That* is something you will never be able to do
    --
    Your conscience never stops you from doing anything. It just stops you
    from enjoying it.


  9. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:25:04 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Kier writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:46:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> ____/ Kier on Sunday 25 November 2007 13:05 : \____
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:00:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> It never ceases to amaze me how many people blindly accept, defend and even
    >>>>> encourage some of the most broken, corrupt, and unethical things that we
    >>>>> have ruining our **world** (not just the human race, aka "society"). And you
    >>>>> know
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not defending it. Please stop putting words in my mouth, Roy. Of
    >>>> course it's bad and should be stopped. Just not by the methods described
    >>>> in the original post, which helps no one.
    >>>
    >>> Sorry, Kier, if I misinterpreted or misrepresented. I wasn't my intention.

    >>
    >> Thanks, Roy. Apology accepted :-)

    >
    > Oh boy....


    You're a real prick, aren't you? Roy has the decency to apologise, and all
    you can do is sneer because I have the manners to thank him.

    And somehow, you're supposed to be superior to all of us?

    --
    Kier


  10. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    chrisv wrote:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>"Hadron" wrote:>




    > Ironic, considering your M$ crapware again mangled the quoted text.


    And there you have it. Bill Weisgerber a M$ shill, & Quack a M$ defender,
    cozying up to each other. One wintroll comforting another.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  11. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Kier writes:

    > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:25:04 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Kier writes:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:46:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ____/ Kier on Sunday 25 November 2007 13:05 : \____
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:00:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It never ceases to amaze me how many people blindly accept, defend and even
    >>>>>> encourage some of the most broken, corrupt, and unethical things that we
    >>>>>> have ruining our **world** (not just the human race, aka "society"). And you
    >>>>>> know
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm not defending it. Please stop putting words in my mouth, Roy. Of
    >>>>> course it's bad and should be stopped. Just not by the methods described
    >>>>> in the original post, which helps no one.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sorry, Kier, if I misinterpreted or misrepresented. I wasn't my intention.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks, Roy. Apology accepted :-)

    >>
    >> Oh boy....

    >
    > You're a real prick, aren't you? Roy has the decency to apologise, and all
    > you can do is sneer because I have the manners to thank him.
    >
    > And somehow, you're supposed to be superior to all of us?


    You seem to think I think I am superior. And yet William Poaster
    boastnig about his filters and how it "all works for him" isn't? Chrisv
    calling people "****wits" and *plonk*ing them isn't? Roy telling us all
    how we should recognise how MS are evil isn't? Peter calling people
    "Dumb **** Windows Users" isn't?

    You need to recalibrate your paranoia meter. Remember the "COLA
    advocates" all think you are a troll too.

    --
    Vermouth always makes me brilliant unless it makes me idiotic.
    -- E. F. Benson

  12. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    On Nov 19, 8:23 am, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
    wrote:
    > >>MS is richer

    >
    > "chrisv"
    >
    > > We know that M$ market power assures them steady income, you slimey
    > > POS. All the more ironic that the crapware they produce is inferior
    > > to that produced by what lying assholes like you call "amateurs".

    >
    > You know, when I see people using Linux, it's never professionals. It's
    > always children who can't afford a real operating system, and losers who
    > just hate Microsoft no matter what Microsoft does.


    bzzzt! your boyfriend's socks are dry.

  13. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Peter KŲhlmann wrote:

    >Hadron snotted:
    >>
    >> Almost certainly that nutter "Oldtech" again. Waving his Ubuntu CDs
    >> around in Shopping malls. "Linux processes are 50000 time faster than
    >> Windows. Where does COLA get them from?!?!?!?

    >
    >Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
    >"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
    >specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
    >professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven" and "time
    >coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian
    >O'Leary


    Hehe. Getting to be quite a list.


  14. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    chrisv wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >>Hadron snotted:
    >>>
    >>> Almost certainly that nutter "Oldtech" again. Waving his Ubuntu CDs
    >>> around in Shopping malls. "Linux processes are 50000 time faster than
    >>> Windows. Where does COLA get them from?!?!?!?

    >>
    >>Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
    >>"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert",
    >>"X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
    >>professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven" and "time
    >>coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian
    >>O'Leary

    >
    > Hehe. Getting to be quite a list.


    Well, at some time in the future one has to massivly shorten that list. To
    the things Hadron actually knows something about.
    Problem with that approach is: Until now he hasn't yet revealed what exactly
    those things might be

    Instead he used a new nym ("Richard") in the Ubuntu group
    --
    Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.


  15. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:

    >> I didn't say that the 2 degrees represents the observed rise. I said it
    >> is the predicted rise (the lowest end of the range of predicted values.

    >
    > A rise predicted based on models that failed to track the observed rise
    > in the past. IOW, a model that doesn't predict well enough to be worth a
    > crap.


    So you think there is currently only /one/ model of global warming?

    Where do you think the large range in prediction comes from? (It could
    also come from normal uncertainties, of course.)

    > Yes, and not relevent to the AGW discussion, which is about manmade C02.
    > Water vapour is indeed the largest contributor to GW, but what we
    > "produce" of that is a tiny fraction of a fraction of one percent of the
    > total, even less than the % of atmospheric C02 we produce.


    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

    Greenhouse Gases
    Frequently Asked Questions

    * Water Vapor
    * Carbon Dioxide
    * Methane
    * Tropospheric Ozone
    * Nitrous Oxide
    * Synthetic greenhouse gases
    * Carbon Monoxide

    My quick take:

    Water vapor -- provides a nice feedback loop for gw (global warming)
    CO2 -- An increase of 30% since around 1700 sounds like something to
    study to me
    Methane -- not much of an issue
    Ozone -- Another 30% riser. Too bad it doesn't patch up the ozone
    hole.
    Nitrous oxide -- nothing to laugh about
    CFC's -- Under control, but persistent, so you might want to apply
    that non-CFC deodorant.
    CO -- Catalytic converters seem to be helping.

    > Yes, past temps matter. The earth has been both warmer, and colder in
    > the past, with no input from man. Ergo, there are natural processes that
    > affect global temps. If we don't understand them, then we can't predict
    > with any accuracy what will happen when we change one variable by less
    > than a third of a percentage point.


    Where do you get this "1/3%" number? It's more like 25%.

    >>> However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.

    >>
    >> That's not what I've read. At all.
    >>

    >
    > http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...uthseaice.html
    >
    > google is your friend.


    That source is five years old.

    > It peaked in 1998, that's significant. It's been warmer in the recent
    > past, that's significant. It will no doubt get warmer, and colder in the
    > future, that's significant. What it isn't, is proof of AGW.


    Who's saying it is? Local variations mean little.

    >> Who said the situation is simple? It isn't. Cherry-picking
    >> observations to buttress one's point is not science.

    >
    > bingo, and there lies the big problem with most of the AGW stuff, it's
    > cherry picking to the nth degree. Ignore the medieval warming period,


    And the Little Ice Age that came after it? Both are local variations.

    > the solar cycles, the solar output. Ignore anything that doesn't fit the
    > desired model. If that doesn't work, jigger the numbers so it comes out
    > the way you want it to.


    Look, are we talking about politically motivated number jiggling, or
    scientists jiggering numbers?

    The bunch of jiggerers on both sides are to be ignored.

    > What's bad about increasing global temps? It's happened in the past, and
    > led to great harvests of grapes in norther countries, and great food
    > production in Greenland for one thing.


    In local areas. Other areas will experience drought, changes in habitat
    and biology, famine, or some flooding.

    >> However, in the short term (100 years or so), I would hate to think we
    >> persisted on a course that will make our near-term descendant's lives a
    >> living hell, or even significantly impoverished.

    >
    > The globe warming up a couple of degrees won't do that.


    You hope. As you've noted, prediction is difficult. The water vapor
    issue is more difficult.

    >> In the longer term, though, I take some comfort in the long view:
    >> having extracted all the energy we can from hydrocarbons, we'll simply
    >> fall back to a primitive, unfortunate state, and then build civilization
    >> back up, hopefully in a more civilized format.

    >
    > Nope, we'll work this out too.


    No. We won't. We'll be pumping at least the same amount of **** for
    another 100 years. Even if we slow down, China and India won't.

    --
    I'm confident we're fooked!

  16. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * William Poaster fired off this tart reply:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.
    >>>>
    >>>Vis'-a-vis' chrisv, that can happen to anyone.

    >>
    >> Only if it's well-deserved.

    >
    > As far as amicus_curious aka billwg aka Bill Weisgerber, it is *well* deserved.


    He's one of those wankers that gets his jollies by keeping the
    "conversation" going as long as possible, by irritating you with his
    always getting in the last word.

    --
    Tux rox!

  17. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Linonut wrote:

    > * William Poaster fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.
    >>>>>
    >>>>Vis'-a-vis' chrisv, that can happen to anyone.
    >>>
    >>> Only if it's well-deserved.

    >>
    >> As far as amicus_curious aka billwg aka Bill Weisgerber, it is *well*
    >> deserved.

    >
    > He's one of those wankers that gets his jollies by keeping the
    > "conversation" going as long as possible, by irritating you with his
    > always getting in the last word.


    However if you totally ignore him to begin with, he'll only be talking to
    himself.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  18. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Linonut wrote:

    >* William Poaster fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.
    >>>>>
    >>>>Vis'-a-vis' chrisv, that can happen to anyone.
    >>>
    >>> Only if it's well-deserved.

    >>
    >> As far as amicus_curious aka billwg aka Bill Weisgerber, it is *well* deserved.

    >
    >He's one of those wankers that gets his jollies by keeping the
    >"conversation" going as long as possible, by irritating you with his
    >always getting in the last word.


    Worse yet, he's a genuinely bad person, or at least plays one on
    USENET. Someone has to be more than just a run-of-the-mill troll or
    idiot to get me to use the rather-severe "POS" epitaph - they have to
    show genuine immorality.


  19. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:14:39 +0000,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:09:49 -0500,
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Anthropogenic Global warming is bull****, this crap is isolated cases of
    >>>> criminal activity, might as well point to the illegal drug trade as a
    >>>> reason to burn Glaxo down.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, Jim, it is not bull****. The effect is significant, and it
    >>> has nothing to do with illegal activities. The simple fact is that the
    >>> amount of compounds spilled into the air due to the activities of
    >>> civilization is causing climate change.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No that's a simple assertion that fails to meet the scientific methdd.
    >>
    >>> There's a lot of argument about whether this outweighs natural causes of
    >>> climate changes, but, nonetheless, even the most conservative estimates
    >>> work out to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit of change. A significant amount
    >>> no matter how you look at it.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No, some of the claims are 2deg F, in actual fact, the *observed* rise
    >> in temp since 1900, is on the order of 0.7degC (about 1.1degF) and most
    >> of that, (0.5C) was before 1945. Our peak global temp since 1900, was in
    >> 1998, according to the climatologists, due to the el Nino that year.
    >>
    >> AGW is a failed theory that hangs on only due to political pressure and
    >> people who don't actually read the studies they quote.
    >>
    >> 1) Rises in CO2 presence in the atmosphere *lags* rising temp by nearly
    >> a milennia
    >>
    >> 2) The earth has been *far* warmer in the recent past, as recently as
    >> the medieval warming period in fact, and somehow, the polar bears
    >> survived. Despite the claims of the AGW crowd that the polar bears are
    >> doomed 'cause they can't handle the heat!
    >>

    >
    >> 3) Yeas, arctic ice sheets have been melting and losing ice mass.
    >> However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.
    >>

    >
    > Nope - that was an error made in 2002 which Nasa cleared up very quickly
    > indeed afterwards. Antarctic Ice is not increasing, and neither is
    > Arctic Ice. The only people claiming this now are Oil-company funded
    > Shills. And you.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2040532.stm
    >



    You are quoting a report from 2002, which had this to say.



    But research published last January found that parts of the WAIS may be
    getting thicker, not thinner.




    and when we look for something published a little more recently we find
    reports like this.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0819093118.htm

    (from 2005, 3 years after your report linked above)




    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHSyW2d90bcYOAWPYRAodCAJwLRFMJwJGjHmjkeq/LLZKbkduwlwCg5lJz
    h9hi+eyaQzw3BRljpXDRQu8=
    =x3pD
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.

  20. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:43:58 -0500,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>> I didn't say that the 2 degrees represents the observed rise. I said it
    >>> is the predicted rise (the lowest end of the range of predicted values.

    >>
    >> A rise predicted based on models that failed to track the observed rise
    >> in the past. IOW, a model that doesn't predict well enough to be worth a
    >> crap.

    >
    > So you think there is currently only /one/ model of global warming?
    >


    Oh heck no!

    > Where do you think the large range in prediction comes from? (It could
    > also come from normal uncertainties, of course.)
    >


    It also comes from ****ing with the numbers to get the desired result.

    >> Yes, and not relevent to the AGW discussion, which is about manmade C02.
    >> Water vapour is indeed the largest contributor to GW, but what we
    >> "produce" of that is a tiny fraction of a fraction of one percent of the
    >> total, even less than the % of atmospheric C02 we produce.

    >
    > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
    >
    > Greenhouse Gases
    > Frequently Asked Questions
    >
    > * Water Vapor
    > * Carbon Dioxide
    > * Methane
    > * Tropospheric Ozone
    > * Nitrous Oxide
    > * Synthetic greenhouse gases
    > * Carbon Monoxide
    >
    > My quick take:
    >
    > Water vapor -- provides a nice feedback loop for gw (global warming)
    > CO2 -- An increase of 30% since around 1700 sounds like something to
    > study to me


    yeah, too bad the temp increases were not correlating with the C02
    increases. Instead, temp leads C02 increases, rather than the following.

    > Methane -- not much of an issue
    > Ozone -- Another 30% riser. Too bad it doesn't patch up the ozone
    > hole.
    > Nitrous oxide -- nothing to laugh about
    > CFC's -- Under control, but persistent, so you might want to apply
    > that non-CFC deodorant.
    > CO -- Catalytic converters seem to be helping.
    >
    >> Yes, past temps matter. The earth has been both warmer, and colder in
    >> the past, with no input from man. Ergo, there are natural processes that
    >> affect global temps. If we don't understand them, then we can't predict
    >> with any accuracy what will happen when we change one variable by less
    >> than a third of a percentage point.

    >
    > Where do you get this "1/3%" number? It's more like 25%.
    >


    25% of what? Atmos C02 levels are at about 0.03% of the air. Of that,
    far less that 25% is "man made"

    - From Wikipedia



    Thus, the human civilization is still not a global factor in the carbon
    cycle currently producing per year about 1/75 = 1.3 % of atmospheric
    carbon dioxide, while only near 0.025 % of the amount in the ocean.





    >>>> However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.
    >>>
    >>> That's not what I've read. At all.
    >>>

    >>
    >> http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...uthseaice.html
    >>
    >> google is your friend.

    >
    > That source is five years old.



    Is the data invalidated by more recent data?

    >
    >> It peaked in 1998, that's significant. It's been warmer in the recent
    >> past, that's significant. It will no doubt get warmer, and colder in the
    >> future, that's significant. What it isn't, is proof of AGW.

    >
    > Who's saying it is? Local variations mean little.
    >


    I am talking globally, not regionally. THe earth has been warmer, and
    colder in the past. It happens that we are in a warming period, at least
    a short one, this is a *good* thing.


    >>> Who said the situation is simple? It isn't. Cherry-picking
    >>> observations to buttress one's point is not science.

    >>
    >> bingo, and there lies the big problem with most of the AGW stuff, it's
    >> cherry picking to the nth degree. Ignore the medieval warming period,

    >
    > And the Little Ice Age that came after it? Both are local variations.


    Agreed, and both are far greater swings than even the most idiotic of
    the AGW crowd make. Yet they occured "naturally". Looking at a
    temperature chart and saying "look! man did it!" is bad science.


    >
    >> the solar cycles, the solar output. Ignore anything that doesn't fit the
    >> desired model. If that doesn't work, jigger the numbers so it comes out
    >> the way you want it to.

    >
    > Look, are we talking about politically motivated number jiggling, or
    > scientists jiggering numbers?
    >



    Both.

    > The bunch of jiggerers on both sides are to be ignored.
    >


    No, they are to both be exposed and ridiculed.

    >> What's bad about increasing global temps? It's happened in the past, and
    >> led to great harvests of grapes in norther countries, and great food
    >> production in Greenland for one thing.

    >
    > In local areas. Other areas will experience drought, changes in habitat
    > and biology, famine, or some flooding.
    >



    sure, climate changes, and it doesn't always change for the better. Now,
    is it a net positive? or negative? and is it caused/driven by man?

    >>> However, in the short term (100 years or so), I would hate to think we
    >>> persisted on a course that will make our near-term descendant's lives a
    >>> living hell, or even significantly impoverished.

    >>
    >> The globe warming up a couple of degrees won't do that.

    >
    > You hope. As you've noted, prediction is difficult. The water vapor
    > issue is more difficult.
    >



    It's a negative feedback system, AGW posits a positive feedback system,
    which is inherently unstable. If AGW were true, earth would have gone
    into a temp spin up or down eons ago and we'd all be dead. Or rather,
    not born. As temps rise, other factors moderate them, and eventually,
    they drop, until those changes are moderated and it swings back.

    You have an energy system with 2 inputs. (3 if you count tidal from the
    moon, a small impact in this case) Solar irradience, and radioactive
    elements in the core. That's it. One of them, the solar irradience, has
    the greatest impact of all, pushing an average of 160w/m^2 on every
    square meter of the earth, 24 hrs a day (obviously, that's an average
    over the whole globe/day) a 0.1% increase in that, is a *huge* energy
    bump. Guess how much the solar irradience changes in the 11 year sunspot
    cycle?


    There's a good workout on the effects of solar irradience plotted
    against global temps, and some other data, like brightness of Neptune
    (an indicator of temp of the planet.)


    >>> In the longer term, though, I take some comfort in the long view:
    >>> having extracted all the energy we can from hydrocarbons, we'll simply
    >>> fall back to a primitive, unfortunate state, and then build civilization
    >>> back up, hopefully in a more civilized format.

    >>
    >> Nope, we'll work this out too.

    >
    > No. We won't. We'll be pumping at least the same amount of **** for
    > another 100 years. Even if we slow down, China and India won't.
    >



    Exactly, Which is why Kyoto was bull**** and everyone knew it, and why
    crippling ourselves is a bad idea. Conserve? yes, take calculated
    rational steps ? yes, chicken little? no.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHSywNd90bcYOAWPYRAkoEAKDWnMAIwmN2lGX+PveLwb whWRnc3QCgiECL
    mgaswyIOSTftwXaOcyTddOQ=
    =8IfA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
    -- Fremen Saying

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast