OT: Australia gets it right...

OT: Australia gets it right...

formatting link
...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson
Loading thread data ...

That would be the same guy who makes political decisions based on his religious beliefs........ the guy who want's abortions banned, the guy who goes out of his way to block same sex marriages.

He's a nut bag & got voted in not on his value, but the disdain felt toward the opposition.

Reply to
Glenn B

It is about time SOMEONE woke up!

Reply to
Robert Baer

"... no intention of participating in whatever globalist, redistributive, and ostensibly ?green? cockamamie scheme the UN comes up with next."

Yeah, that sure sounds like an open minded unbiased opinion with no hidden agenda, doesn't it?

Reply to
defaullt

Can you demonstrate factually that your green bias/position is correct? ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

My comment was intended to castigate the tone of

formatting link
's EMOTIONAL pitch.

This is the same tactic used by con men of all ilk. The idea is to have the "mark (you and I) "reacting" emotionally to what is being said, and not analyzing what is being said.

When humans are reacting emotionally they don't employ reason and don't think analytically. They are much less critical of what is said and tend to accept without questioning the facts.

If you wanted to make a point, to a logical objective thinking person, a more reasoned and less impassioned plea would make sense.

Religions, politicians, etc. (and yes "environmentalists") all do it because it is an effective way to manipulate the gullible masses.

Whenever I read things that are obviously intended to be manipulative by their choice of words, I know that someone is lying to me.

And he may well be right in his opinion (couldn't call it an "assessment") but it isn't because he knows what he's talking about, but he could be right in spite of his best efforts.

My personal opinion, not having studied the problem or having the education to do so, is that the predominant opinion of the relevant scientists is probably correct and global warming is real and more likely than not caused by man.

BUT BUT BUT I am equally of the opinion that whatever "solution" that is proposed will, more likely than not, turn out to be a redistribution in wealth from the older technologies to the newer ones, be used to effect some nefarious political end, and be too little and too late. I'm old enough so it doesn't matter to me personally, but does spiritually (I'm an atheist so morality is a personal thing)

I agree with you on one point - whatever the UN comes up with will be more political in nature and not practical and won't solve shit.

An off the wall, out of the box, unknown (today) technology stands a better chance of working - something like adding some chemical to jetliners that increases cloud cover, reducing population, etc..

Reply to
defaullt

So much for the sermon.

My personal opinion, having studied the problem and having the education to do so, is that the predominant opinion of the pretend scientists is incorrect and global warming is a fraud perpetrated by academia types who profit from the ongoing folderol. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

and therein lies the problem - human greed, great for a tribal society, certainly a good survival trait many years ago, but not the best trait for a limited world and large populations.

If you are swayed by an emotional appeal, and your cite would seem to indicate you are, you are easily manipulated.

That is not a good thing.

Face it - your post doesn't support your position. Mere folderol intended to sway the gullible; and it makes you look bad too. Cite some more rational empirical evidence if you want to make a point, not some idiot politician.

Reply to
defaullt

Cut the shit. Run some energy numbers and come back and tell me _facts_! ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

If you feel that strongly perhaps there's a more appropriate forum for your rants. Doubtless you could lock horns with someone above your own expertise in climatology. The question is, do you want to know the truth or do you want to cling to an opinion?

Reply to
defaullt

Whatza matter no grant money?

Cheers

Reply to
Martin Riddle

Reply to
Jim Thompson

Am 13.11.2013 01:42, schrieb Jim Thompson:

...

That? the normal reaction of JT, when his arguments are gone out. He´s an incorrigibble right-wing ignorant, obviously he doesn´t know the difference between Weather an climate.

Due to his narrow horizon he can discuss only like the industry ( or in other cases other wealthy american lobbyists like NRA)

Reply to
Peter
.

Hey, that sounds just like what the "chemtrails" folks have been railing against!

Bob Masta DAQARTA v7.40 Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis

formatting link
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusic generator Science with your sound card!

Reply to
Bob Masta

Peter, Show us some NUMBERS, not bloviations.

It's lefties who always resort to smug BS retorts to side-step the facts... not the right-wing.

Go climb in bed with Slowman >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

In all the numbers that create greenhouse gasses why are substantial 'natural' sources left out?

  1. methane boiling out of the melting tundra, etc
  2. increased, sporadic volcanic activity
  3. reduction of plankton [more an absorber, than a source]
  4. Indonesia on fire, burning now for more than 10 years etc
Reply to
RobertMacy

Simple. It doesn't support their dogma.

Reply to
tm

Yep. One good volcano eruption and we're all dead.

Lefties seem to want us to feel continual pain prior to the final event.

Why aren't lefties concerned about the Argon... almost 27X that of CO2? They should be checking their kids every night and get concerned when they start glowing in the dark ;-)

Maybe it's the lefties' farts that are they main CO2 issue... they certainly do enough of it by mouth >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Your original post shows no numbers just the quote of some idiot politician.

There are plenty of fancy charts and graphs showing climate change/co2 from the industrial age onwards, and plenty of evidences showing positive correlations between atmospheric CO2 and warm climates, and empirical experimental proof showing that CO2 can trap heat.

It is on line and easily available. But the real question is why this crusade you seem to be immersed in? Why do you care? Why do you post to electronics news groups?

Do you really think engineers are going to be swayed by factless emotional appeals?

WHAT IS YOUR AGENDA? WHAT'S IN THIS FOR YOU? WHY DO YOU CARE?

Reply to
defaullt

Prompted by some evidence showing that shortly after 911 there was a spike in global temperatures that was attributed to the decrease in high altitude vapor trails.

Reply to
defaullt

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.