The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:

I can't say fairer than that, now can I?

You didn't ask Dubya, didya?

No, but he clearly learnt his science from the same source.


Attempting to discredit scientists is more your own, and Bush's
(advisors) speciality than mine, I'd have thought.

Although lying about people seems a particular speciality of
yours.

As it is with most Crackpots of course.

More especially once they start to feel the heat.

The only evidence in support of your increasingly hysterical replies
rests in your own posts - nowhere else.

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

Michael, I can't help wondering why you use such an aggressive style
in discussion. It's awfully off-putting.

....

Then don't read my posts.

It really is as simple as that, isn't it?

If you want a forum which is run solely to suit your own
personal tastes Mr Lyle, then I can only suggest you start
up your own moderated chat board.

It isn't my function in life to provide you personally
with either entertainment or information.

You seem to be succeeding admirably in the former, though failing rather
dismally regarding the latter. Perhaps it's a good thing that it isn't
your function in life.

More especially
when you're not paying me anything to do so. And I find it
rather presumptuous on your part to assume otherwise.

I don't remember anyone assuming that you were being paid for your
outpourings.

....

I seem to remember having
been on the wrong end of it myself on one occasion (perhaps I started
it: I really can't remember). Surely if you have the evidence and
present it clearly, it will speak for itself: the issue is far too
interesting to get emotional about. Nick gets distinctly blunt at
times, but ratcheting up isn't the way to deal with it.

--
Mike.


....

If I ever require advice on how to conduct myself on NewsGroups Mr Lyle,
or in life generaly for that matter, you can rest assured that the first
person who I'll turn to for advice, will be somebody who clearly believes
themselves especially qualified to offer advice on such subjects,
such as yourself.

Ah, good. I must say that I approve of your rating Mike as knowing how
to conduct himself in newsgroups, for I totally agree there.

Book of Common Prayer

Hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them.

/Prayer

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:48:59 GMT, "Cereus-validus......."
wrote:

It seems clear that the reason for this year's heat wave is the lack of
particulate matter in the atmosphere blocking out the solar radiation.

What needs to be done is to encourage pollution worldwide to block out the
bad radiation so we can cool down the planet just a little!!!!

Duby's hare-brained solution to the problem almost seems to make sense. We
need to burn a lot more coal!!!


snip:



Or how about another volcano eruption?

Thunder

How about burning towns & villages in the name of democracy?

How about more forest fires to open up land to raise more cattle?

Lowering air pollution standards would definitely do the job!!!


"Rolling Thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:48:59 GMT, "Cereus-validus......."
wrote:

It seems clear that the reason for this year's heat wave is the lack of
particulate matter in the atmosphere blocking out the solar radiation.

What needs to be done is to encourage pollution worldwide to block out the
bad radiation so we can cool down the planet just a little!!!!

Duby's hare-brained solution to the problem almost seems to make sense. We
need to burn a lot more coal!!!


snip:



Or how about another volcano eruption?

Thunder

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:


There are claims even among Global Warming supporting
meteorologists that the present European droughts and heatwaves
are merely features of a recurrent 60 yr(?) cycle. Because ironically
global warming is expected to adversly affect the Gulf Stream
and make Western Europe more subject to cold air currents from
the Central Asian landmass to the East.

Oh, God, not cyclemania again :-( As with most other areas where
people have claimed to discover cycles (and the reason is not
obvious), there is damn-all evidence for them. Most of the time
the series is almost certainly an ARIMA model of sorts (think of
that as a correlated random walk).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Global warming is caused by the dwindling number of pirates.

See http://www.venganza.org/

Bob

Bob Smith wrote:
[...]
Global warming is caused by the dwindling number of pirates.

See http://www.venganza.org/

The calm Voice of Sanity at last! It should be noted, however, that a
recent spike in pirate numbers local to Indonesian waters has often
been adduced in an attempt to refute the theory. It's very important
to get across to the lay public, which might easily be confused by
such an apparent counter-example, that in fact these data merely
_confirm_ the theory.

Nick can explain the stats better than I, and I wish dear old Franz
were still with us to describe the physics, but I think it's
essentially correct to say it's a matter of what the layman would
call "averaging". A localised concentration does nothing to detract
from the principle applied globally; and, very interestingly,
according to catastrophe theory, may even appear to produce a
transitory effect _contrary_ to what a global calculation would
predict.

--
Mike.

In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:
|
| Nick can explain the stats better than I, and I wish dear old Franz
| were still with us to describe the physics, but I think it's
| essentially correct to say it's a matter of what the layman would
| call "averaging". A localised concentration does nothing to detract
| from the principle applied globally; and, very interestingly,
| according to catastrophe theory, may even appear to produce a
| transitory effect _contrary_ to what a global calculation would
| predict.

As demonstrated by the technology of paraffin refrigerators.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:

Nick can explain the stats better than I, and I wish dear old
Franz
were still with us to describe the physics, but I think it's
essentially correct to say it's a matter of what the layman would
call "averaging". A localised concentration does nothing to
detract
from the principle applied globally; and, very interestingly,
according to catastrophe theory, may even appear to produce a
transitory effect _contrary_ to what a global calculation would
predict.

As demonstrated by the technology of paraffin refrigerators.

A perfect example in more than one sense: I remember some people back
in Sa'udi had one which had to be turned upside-down every day to
make it work.

--
Mike.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:

Nick can explain the stats better than I, and I wish dear old
Franz were still with us to describe the physics, but I think
it's essentially correct to say it's a matter of what the
layman would call "averaging". A localised concentration does
nothing to detract from the principle applied globally; and,
very interestingly, according to catastrophe theory, may even
appear to produce a transitory effect _contrary_ to what a
global calculation would predict.

As demonstrated by the technology of paraffin refrigerators.

Even though I Googled for it I can't find how a paraffin refrigerator
works. Anyone?

--


Travis in Shoreline Washington

Travis wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:

Nick can explain the stats better than I, and I wish dear old
Franz were still with us to describe the physics, but I think
it's essentially correct to say it's a matter of what the
layman would call "averaging". A localised concentration does
nothing to detract from the principle applied globally; and,
very interestingly, according to catastrophe theory, may even
appear to produce a transitory effect _contrary_ to what a
global calculation would predict.

As demonstrated by the technology of paraffin refrigerators.

Even though I Googled for it I can't find how a paraffin
refrigerator
works. Anyone?

Same as a gas one.

--
Mike.

In article ,
martin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:57:32 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
Travis wrote:

Even though I Googled for it I can't find how a paraffin
refrigerator
works. Anyone?

Same as a gas one.

and for those who don't know ...

http://www.nh3tech.org/absorption.html

Ye gods! That explains why I was about to give the answer to how
one works: rather badly.

I had never looked up the physics before, but that isn't the sort
of technology that is ideal for the conditions we used them in.
Not field repairable? When transport from the nearest factory
takes several weeks? Not good news.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Mike Lyle wrote:
Travis wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:

Nick can explain the stats better than I, and I wish dear
old Franz were still with us to describe the physics, but I
think it's essentially correct to say it's a matter of what
the layman would call "averaging". A localised
concentration does nothing to detract from the principle
applied globally; and, very interestingly, according to
catastrophe theory, may even appear to produce a transitory
effect _contrary_ to what a global calculation would
predict.

As demonstrated by the technology of paraffin refrigerators.

Even though I Googled for it I can't find how a paraffin
refrigerator works. Anyone?

Same as a gas one.

Since paraffin is a soild (isn't it) and gas is a gas I don't get it.

--


Travis in Shoreline Washington

In article DGxOe.10628$g47.7290@trnddc07,
Travis wrote:

Since paraffin is a soild (isn't it) and gas is a gas I don't get it.

Not at any civilised temperature, it isn't. It is a liquid. You
are thinking of paraffin wax. Also don't confuse (liquid) paraffin
with liquid paraffin :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message c_qOe.9353$g47.2489@trnddc07
from "Travis" contains these words:

Even though I Googled for it I can't find how a paraffin refrigerator
works. Anyone?

Thermosyphon, like an Electrolux. They do gas ones, electric ones and
someone makes a paraffin one, probably Electrolux. There are also
gas/electric ones on the market, mainly for caravanners.

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message DGxOe.10628$g47.7290@trnddc07
from "Travis" contains these words:

Even though I Googled for it I can't find how a paraffin
refrigerator works. Anyone?

Same as a gas one.

Since paraffin is a soild (isn't it) and gas is a gas I don't get it.

'Paraffin' is a group of hydrocabons which includes solids through to
gases. The paraffin referred to is somewhere in the middle of the group
and is called kerosene in Transpondia.

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/