OT: Eco-Warrior Gets Pwned by Veteran News Presenter!

ooking for? "

The stuff I am looking for is. They make money off what they refine out of the salt. So they can refine it and just not fine grid it or add that anti- clumping agent and it is sea salt. That is because thy can claim that all s alt is from the sea.

There is pink Himalayan salt that is actually from the mountains and suppos ed to very good, and of course expensive. But then there is other pink salt , it is colored ad sold as curing salt.

Salt is better without that additive, but with those trace minerals still i n it, it is much much better.

I got Bokek and Ceara Atlanta(sp). The former is harvested from the Dead Se a, the latter is from northern regions of the Atlantic Ocean. They claimed it is harvested the old fashioned way, dam up a shallow body of seawater an d let the sun dry it out. the you just collect it up. It is like salt they had hundreds of years ago.

I approached a company about having some samples analysed but found it cost prohibitive. Sure it would be nice to send in what I have, though the purp ose would be to find a good supplier now. But the cost at something like $1 ,500 per sample is just a bit to steep for me. I mean I could buy say four kinds now and send in samples along with what I got and $7,500 later not fi nd anything good.

As long as there are no regulations the can legally call almost any sodium chloride sea sat.

On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:22:01 UTC+1, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: NT:

looking for? "

f the salt. So they can refine it and just not fine grid it or add that ant i-clumping agent and it is sea salt. That is because thy can claim that all salt is from the sea.

osed to very good, and of course expensive. But then there is other pink sa lt, it is colored ad sold as curing salt.

in it, it is much much better.

Sea, the latter is from northern regions of the Atlantic Ocean. They claime d it is harvested the old fashioned way, dam up a shallow body of seawater and let the sun dry it out. the you just collect it up. It is like salt the y had hundreds of years ago.

st prohibitive. Sure it would be nice to send in what I have, though the pu rpose would be to find a good supplier now. But the cost at something like $1,500 per sample is just a bit to steep for me. I mean I could buy say fou r kinds now and send in samples along with what I got and $7,500 later not find anything good.

m chloride sea sat.

There is concentrace trace mineral drops, but they're not cheap.

NT

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Common table salt... Pretty much all of it, is recovered from salt dome mines using deep reservoirs in the dome of highly salt infused water. They pump that out and produce table salt from evaporation process. They pump more water into the dome tubes and pull more salty water out. The evaporation insures that there are no inclusions and pure salt gets to your table... Unless it is iodized, of course. But that would be added just before the evaporation cycle.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

For *some* things.

Too much of so many things and especially salt are very bad for you.

Analysis of pink Himalayan salt: However, that only contains about 4% minerals (formly known as contaminants). If you really want your minerals, perhaps Celtic Sea salt at 23% would be better:

You might enjoy a visit to the Wieliczka Salt Mine in Poland:

San Francisco Bay has some large evaporation ponds: However, they're being restored back to their natural wetlands condition over the next 30 years:

Cargill also has a salt mine UNDER Lake Erie, which appears to be a potential safety risk:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Apr 27, 2019, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote (in article):

Having actually read the emails and having some acquaintance with how science is done, my reading is also that the Climate Research Unit folk were true believers, and were actively trying to suppress what they fervently believed to be somewhere between wrong-headed and corrupt thoughts.

The CRU folk would have sent people with such thoughts to reeducation camps, if the option were available. They were explicitly trying to destroy the careers of wrong-thinking people.

But the CRU folk did _believe_ in what they were doing, and so were not lying (which requires both knowing that something is untrue, plus intent to deceive people about that thing -- it is *not* enough that a stated thing turns out to be untrue -- intent to deceive must also be proven).

As for the Climate Hiatus (which had been noticed a few years earlier), the CRU folk felt that it had to be some kind of modeling or experimental error

about it, hoping that the deniers would not notice.

Ten years later we now know that the Hiatus was and remains real, and people have been trying to figure out where the missing heat is hiding, the leading theories being that the heat is being accumulated somewhere in the ocean deeps. Nowhere else makes much sense, for lack of sufficient thermal capacity, but I am not convinced that we today understand the mechanism or more likely mechanisms well enough to support any bold predictions. As science articles always end, more research is needed.

As for the thoroughly bad paper in question, do you have a copy? I never did obtain a copy, and so have no opinion on its merits. Given the level of contention here, only direct examination of original sources will do.

always appropriate? Please expand.

.

Above lost line reinstated. Items arguing that Climate Change is itself true or false are out of scope here, and so are deleted. As are ad hominem attacks.

. Joe Gwinn

the are

hey hav

did

to

any

uch

think

orked

rnal

ine.

ence

ved

Getting four reviews, all of which said "don't publish this rotten paper" a nd publishing it anyway is decidedly wrong-headed, and since the paper was really handy for the denialist propaganda machine, the suspicion of corrupt ion was rather strong.

ps,

Why bother? If somebody has to sold out to the merchants of doubt, re-educa tion would be a waste of time.

le.

Ignoring four "reject" reviewers reports and getting found out is a career- destroying move on its own. It's more that they detected a decidedly anti-s ocial act, and made the evidence about it available to people who need to k now about it.

When the journal's publisher declined to fire the editor concerned, the edi torial board all resigned in protest, and at that point the publisher got t he message.

ying

eive

ut

he

or

t talk

ple

ing

r

Twaddle.

The El Nino/La Nina alternation changes the average global temperature.

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has the same sort of effect over long er periods.

The average temperature of the surface of the globe is a noisy signal, and cherry-picking segments to claim that there's been a "hiatus" in anthropoge nic global warming is silly.

did

I'm sure you could find it."The Climate Files" names the journal. I'm not g oing to bother to re-read it to try an find it - I think my copy is still b ack in Nijmegen.

thus

Science is about creating a coherent body of work. You submit your work to peer-reviewed journals, and referees read it, and give the editor their opi nion on whether it is worth publishing or not. Consilience is what is being aimed for

You can have any opinion you like, but you can't publish it in a peer-revie wed journal if it doesn't make sense in that context.

Read up on "continental drift" sometime.

true.

rue

You can't talk about climate change on the basis that it is merely a hypoth esis. There's rather too much supporting evidence that says it is real, and rather too much bought and paid for propaganda claiming that it isn't.

"Out of scope" doesn't let you off the hook.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On May 1, 2019, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote (in article):

What is open for debate is who was correct, reviewers (who may or may not also be true believers), or the author. We need to see the actual paper.

Heh. Misses the point.

Coercion does work, then.

ns out

talk

Matter of opinion it seems. The literature has not yet settled.

Now that I think of it, the journal is named in the emails. But I recall that is was rare and paywall-defended.

thus

consensus and consilience can be very wrong.

Yes, the area is thoroughly polluted with conflicting theories and spin. Given that these are trillion-dollar issues, how could it be otherwise? Back to original sources.

This is now trotted out whenever someone disagrees, but actually proves

Sure it does, because my assessment of the emails had nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Global Warming. Said another matter, what was being done was ugly regardless of the scientific issue being discussed. In other words, even if it turned out that there was for instance no hiatus, those actions were still ugly, and unbecoming.

Joe Gwinn

ote:

and the area has become thoroughly muddled, with everybody insisting that o nly they have the one true summary.

who did know enough about what academics do, and are supposed to do, to be able to come to useful conclusions. None of them thought that e-mails reve aled any questionable activity. Climate change denialists have stuck with t he conclusion that they like.

ty

e

ist

peer-

tent > > > > suited the denialist propaganda machine

lk

r"

was

It got widely cited on denialist websites, which makes it unlikely that it got the science right.

camps, if the option were available.

The point you want to make is that climate science is an ideology, not a sc ience, which doesn't happen to be true, and plays into the world view that the denialist propaganda machine wants to popularise.

Don't expect me - or anybody with any grasp of what's actually going on - t o fall for such a puerile trick.

people.

edly

need

r got

Investigative journalism and consequent exposure does work. An editorial bo ard resigning isn't any kind of coercive act. Quite the reverse - the edito rial board abandoned the journal, and the publisher was left on his own to evaluate his options. He wasn't going to be able to make money out of publi shing a medium quality academic journal if the board of academics who had p reviously endorsed it had decided to bail out.

ot

ent

d

).

),

ntal

g,

re in

t

There's always some half-wit publishing in a marginal journal who likes to make that kind of claim. The "Climate Hiatus" was always a denialist fraud, and if you haven't work that out yet, you are hopelessly gullible.

longer periods.

and

That isn't "theory" but practical fact. Grow up.

ver did obtain a copy, and so have no opinion on its merits. Given the leve l of contention here, only direct examination of original sources will do.

ot

ill

that

It wasn't a great journal, and mainly existed to make money for it's publis her, and let second-grade academics get second grade publications onto thei r CV. It didn't sound as if its impact factor was large.

and thus

to

s

Wegner had a bold idea, which turned out to be fundamentally correct (despi te the occasional detail that Wegner got fatuously wrong), but it didn't ma ke sense at the time, and it took about fifty years for geological knowledg e and understanding to advance to the point where it could make sense, when it was enthusiastically accepted..

Not in the same class. The result was a surprise, but it didn't contradict anything that people actually knew, as opposed to what they'd assumed witho ut thinking about it.

not

lf

minem

it

The conflicting interests are those of the population as a whole, who don't want climate change, and those of the fossil-carbon extraction industry wh o are making enough money out of warming up the planet to be able to buy sa fe refuge in places that won't warm up much.

It's not difficult to distinguish between the legitimate interest and the c onfected spin, and irresponsible to act as if the are two sides invovled at re of comparable merit.

Better regulation of fake news?

The fact that unsavoury people are behaving dishonestly for money is defini tely an ad hominem argument, but so is naming and shaming other forms of hu man rights abuse. The people involved were and are criminally dishonest, an d you are busy setting yourself up as one of their accomplices.

the

Off on cloud nine, are we?

ds,

s

Cleaning out an augean stable is an unbecoming activity, but turning up you r noise at it doesn't get the stables clean.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Deciding to associate (or resign in protest) is normal social interaction, and not 'coercion'.

Can't wait for 'settled' in this contentious environment. Ocean stirring and ice melting don't leave a detailed record that we'll be able to analyze, so the 'unconvinced' will always have a glitch to point to.

We need enough info to proceed into the future, we dont need omniscience.

It can be otherwise by insisting on disclosure of interest. Wei-Hock Soon who didn't disclose his energy-industry funding was committing a major ethical breach, and in an ideal world, it wouldn't take years for such things to come to light.

Serious science theories don't conflict for long, if there are observations and a venue for serious discussion. The 'conflicting theories' you see in tweets aren't part of a serious discussion. "Warmist", like "Jewish science" is a keyphrase indicating that the spin doctors are running the discussion, not the scientists.

I"m thinking that 'trillion-dollar issues' doesn't change any of the science, and that's another disturbing phrase to see in a science discussion.

On May 2, 2019, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote (in article):

thus

We have reached our usual limit cycle. Our positions are quite clear now, so I?ll stop now. You may have the last word.

Joe Gwinn

On May 2, 2019, whit3rd wrote (in article):

Well, I did know how he made his living.

By the same token, anybody who works for an greenie group must be convicted of bias?

Yep. But "for long" can be the better part of a century.

The point about a trillion-dollar issue is simply that when one proposes that people spend trillions of dollars on something, one should expect resistance, very close questioning, and loud debate. And it will take a very long time to resolve. It has always been thus.

In the US, one must convince approximately 200 million people. But even if that is done, there is a scaling issue: The population of the US is about 300 million. The total population of China, India, and Pakistan is more like

3,000 million, and they are mostly poor, and mostly use coal. It actually makes little difference what the US (and the EU for that matter) does, it will be swamped by China, India, and Pakistan, as they try to escape poverty, to become rich like us.

Appeals to the authority of science are all well and good, butwith that much

Joe Gwinn

the

isher

on,

sm or

s. As

g and

ce.

in.

e?

on

ght.

ed

No. Somebody working for a greenie group is up-front about how they make t heir money.

"From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fue l industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work."

ions

in

ence"

sion,

Not often. And not when the subject is of serious practical interest, as an thropogenic global warming definitely is.

ience, and that's another disturbing phrase to see in a science discussion.

that

nce,

e to

Nobody is actually proposing to spend trillions of dollars. The changes we need to make to the way we get energy do involve re-directing trillions of dollars worth of investment, and make lots of money spent on fossil carbon extraction less immediately profitable than its investors had hoped, but th e delusion that tackling climate change necessarily requires vast increases in taxes is one that is assiduously cultivated by the denialist propaganda machine.

Putting a tax on burning fossil carbon, and using the money to speed up inv estment in wind farms and solar farms is one way of re-directing investmen t, but it is more carrot and stick than upfront spending.

f 300

China is by far the largest player, and it has invested hugely in solar pow er. It is shutting down dirty and inefficient coal fired power plants very rapidly - more to minimise air-pollution than to minimise CO2 emissions, t hough both go down together . It has much more to lose from climate change than the US - it's agriculture is much more marginal, and it hasn't got the option of stopping eating meat when yields go down.

India and Pakistan are putting in a lot of small scale solar generation, pr etty much entirely because it offers local solutions - you don't need to bu ild a country wide power grid to get rural electricification if you've got enough sunlight and enough battery capacity to keep the lights on into the evening.

rty,

Enough anthropogenic global warming to wreck their agriculture would make i t perfectly certain that they would never get "rich like us". Just because we got rich by burning fossil carbon doesn't mean it is the only way to get enough energy to support a modern life-style.

much

The authority of the science that tells you that higher global temperatures mean more intense tropical cyclones is more persuasive than you seem to th ink.

The cyclones are happening and they are killing more people.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Why does 'a greenie group' matter in serious science discussion? Any group interested in science (knowledge, understanding) can contribute, and has no reason to be clandestine about it. A commercial interest, on the other hand, might NOT favor truth.

Not true, of course. Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941 and war was declared on Dec. 8. Time does NOT resolve science disputes; Einstein's works, or Darwin's, can be denied for decades-to-centuries, by small enclaves or cults. What it takes to resolve disputes is NEVER simply 'a very long time', that's just obfuscation.

It's also odd that you suggest 'spend trillions' when the issue of global warming is that it COSTS trillions. Are you only considering half of the economic issue?

On May 2, 2019, whit3rd wrote (in article):

The core problem is that except for a few fortunate people, we all must work

prove corruption - it is far more likely to be agreement.

Pearl Harbor was not a scientific dispute at all, and there was no question at all about who did what. So I do not see the applicability to global warming.

Darwin is a better example. It took some time for evolution to be accepted by the bulk of the scientific community, and the religious communities are not yet all on board. And there was no real money at stake.

ng

Well, such impact predictions are also widely disputed. For the contrary case, see for instance.

.

But more generally, my point is simply that with any question having multi-trillion-dollar costs and consequences, expect fierce debate, one where scientific opinion is only one component of the debate, and do not expect any such question to be settled quickly, as in a democracy it is necessary to convince a clear majority of the population before anything much will happen.

.

To understand the politics of Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) in the US, the following survey from Yale University is illuminating:

.

All the maps except one say that people believe in climate change. The other map says that they also don't think that it will harm them personally.

This in a nutshell is why nothing much has been happening here in the US other than talk, despite strident daily warnings from the media.

. And then there are some folk who remember the global _cooling_ scare of 1975, ~40 years ago. See "The Cooling World", Newsweek, 28 April 1975, page

2. Joe Gwinn

jor

o light

victed of bias?

oup

to

t NOT

ork

that we

oes not

was working for one organisation - the Harvard?Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - while taking money from the Charles G. Koch Charitable F oundation, the American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon Mobil, amongst othe rs.

"Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financi al reward in any of my scientific research" and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research"."

This is what you'd expect him to say. The fact that his publications have b een criticised for lack of rigor by the scientific community, and welcomed with enthusiasm by the denialist propaganda machine supports a rather diffe rent hypothesis.

here

any

pen.

the

ly.

The "nutshell" ignores the fact that the denialist propaganda machine got b usy with deluding the US electorate in the late 1990's and they've been spe nding a lot on keeping them deluded since then

Abraham Lincoln wasn't entirely right - you can fool enough of the people e nough of the time, if you spend enough money on it.

975,

Not exactly in the same class.It was a speculation based on very little evi dence. It took more than a decade of regular academic data collection to ma ke it seem more likely that the world was warming up, and the warming signa l didn't start looking statistically significant before about 1990

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

...and can plausibly claim they were just following orders? Not acceptable. You sign the work, you take responsibility. Is Joe Gwinn an alias, by any chance?

It's applicable to big-money emergency.

'Widely disputed' is available at forty cents per word. That book might be interesting, except it's marketed as 'skeptical' not realistic; error on the side of ignorance is the rule for skeptics. It also has the major flaw of a latest edition date 2007; surely you realize the floods in Pakistan, heat deaths in Moscow, unprecedented forest fires, and loss of circa 5% of the world's wheat crop happened in 2010; a 'facts-only' basis nowadays DOES show some significant costs that weren't obvious in 2007.

Seems like you cherry--picked that book to waste my time.

Two hundred countries signing onto the Paris accords is evidence that the convincing part is over.

... if you mean dysfunctional politics, spare us!

Better, don't see it. That was a speculation, poorly founded and discarded ~39 years ago, and was NEVER a scare. Reading up on a bit of discarded debris is less important than understanding dysfunctional politics. Congratulations, you've hit a new low!

On May 4, 2019, whit3rd wrote (in article):

everyone else is hopelessly corrupted, the only difference being the direction of the bias.

The legal system knows how to work its way up the organization.

. . e

But it does not follow that because one big emergency was handled in four years, that all big emergencies can be handled in four years as well. Big Emergencies differ.

.

Same price for either side of the debate.

.

de

say. Hmm.

The "skeptical" part came from his personal experience, as recounted in his original book on the subject.

Lomberg is an economist. His basic position is to accept that global warming is true, but to propose that there are far better ways to manage the effects than those various multi-trillion-dollar proposals.

You can sample him - he has many published articles.

. .

To voters in the US, it makes little difference who did and did not sign the Paris Accord. And the US Senate refused to approve the Paris Accord Treaty. A big sticking point was that it did not constrain China.

.

Yes, they may be dysfunctional (deplorable?), but in a democracy they still

the complaint implied by "dysfunctional politics".

.

Ad Hominem, and thus fallacious.

For those who are interested in what did happen, see the following:

.

exercise, change cooling to warming. Note how the arguments and language of then parallels the arguments and language of today. There is nothing new under the Sun.

Joe Gwinn

a major

y group

ason to

might

st work

ble.

s.

-

That's totally nonsense, money-for-spin isn't the impetus behind most writing If it's the force driving YOUR writing, you've been corrupted. Personal responsibility is the rule here, not cash.

But in science, a reputation for misfeasance is a career killer. There's no 'legal system' that can save Andrew Wakefield's reputation after falsifi ed vaccination analysis.

Close enough. After all, I've not been citing my own work, only that of o thers, and historic events, using logic to connect. It's not 'testimony' I'm off ering, it's evidence and logic.

global

onomic

ary

Not true; a technical report of a year's science work costs a lot more than that. Don't conflate opinion with research results, people can generate opinions in moments, or research in months. Even if it were only ONE order of magnitude diffe rence, that would matter: it's more like five orders of magnitude.

n the s

latest

hs in

rop

ant

hing to

Oh, not true; my library has the book, I've put it on hold. The advertise ment you pointed at, though, promises very little of real interest. Maybe I'll report back when I've seen the opus.

Not true; there's carbon-neutrality legislation with lots of support in som e states, but at the federal level (recently) no popular vote that can be cited. P erhaps you're thinking of punditry or an executive action rather than a vote?

Worldwide problem, here; cherry-picking a single nation, and relying on a ' silent majority' argument, is unconvincing.