Todd wrote:
On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no
facts in rebuttal (again).

Hi David,

I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is
made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not
the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,
then you have to prove it to me.


All through the thread on water treatment I gave you facts and argument that
it was safe to drink. You gave nothing but eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww. The last
instance you said I was saying coal can't be cleaned. I explained it can in
small scale but at large scale it is unproven. Then you changed the subject
to climate change.

All that has nothing to do with me having to prove climate change happens,
which I will not attempt here. If you want to go round on that there are
plenty of NGs that will accommodate you but it would be unreasonable here.
This is now getting into debate about debating which is as unproductive as
debating climate change. Lets leave it.

David

On 3/7/2014 11:16 AM, Todd wrote:
On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no facts in
rebuttal (again).

Hi David,

I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is
made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not
the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,
then you have to prove it to me.

The Climate Change crowd has not got squat. Their computer models
are so bad they couldn't predict the sun will rise the next day.
Plus, they have been caught falsifying their data. And, they
name call ("Deniers") anyone that "Dare" disagree with them.
And there is no open debate as they refuse to listen to
contradictory evidence, which is overwhelming.

And even though I don't have to, here you go:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php

My guess, sun spot activity is far more responsible than
anything man can do. Ever see how much crap a volcano
spews into the atmosphere? Mankind is a piker!

Sea levels rising? Good luck proving that one.


Forget computer models.

Instead, talk to the almond growers in the Central Valley of California.
They have seen reductions in crops because their trees no longer get
sufficient winter chill. This has been going on for a few years now.

Also talk to the Canadian government. They are planning a new seaport
on their arctic coast to handle shipping through the North-West Passage.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:31:45 PM UTC-8, David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/7/2014 11:16 AM, Todd wrote:

On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:



First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no facts in

rebuttal (again).



Hi David,



I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is

made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not

the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,

then you have to prove it to me.



The Climate Change crowd has not got squat. Their computer models

are so bad they couldn't predict the sun will rise the next day.

Plus, they have been caught falsifying their data. And, they

name call ("Deniers") anyone that "Dare" disagree with them.

And there is no open debate as they refuse to listen to

contradictory evidence, which is overwhelming.



And even though I don't have to, here you go:



http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php



My guess, sun spot activity is far more responsible than

anything man can do. Ever see how much crap a volcano

spews into the atmosphere? Mankind is a piker!



Sea levels rising? Good luck proving that one.





Forget computer models.



Instead, talk to the almond growers in the Central Valley of California.

They have seen reductions in crops because their trees no longer get

sufficient winter chill. This has been going on for a few years now.



Also talk to the Canadian government. They are planning a new seaport

on their arctic coast to handle shipping through the North-West Passage.


David, why waste electrons on deniers of any stripe. They will always find "data" to support their bias. Even when global warming reaches up and bites them or their progeny in the posterior, their determination bias will burn fierce and strong (block that metaphor g)

HB

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:44:25 PM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
On 03/08/2014 11:34 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:31:45 PM UTC-8, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/7/2014 11:16 AM, Todd wrote:



On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:







First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no facts in



rebuttal (again).







Hi David,







I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is



made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not



the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,



then you have to prove it to me.







The Climate Change crowd has not got squat. Their computer models



are so bad they couldn't predict the sun will rise the next day.



Plus, they have been caught falsifying their data. And, they



name call ("Deniers") anyone that "Dare" disagree with them.



And there is no open debate as they refuse to listen to



contradictory evidence, which is overwhelming.







And even though I don't have to, here you go:







http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php







My guess, sun spot activity is far more responsible than



anything man can do. Ever see how much crap a volcano



spews into the atmosphere? Mankind is a piker!







Sea levels rising? Good luck proving that one.











Forget computer models.







Instead, talk to the almond growers in the Central Valley of California.



They have seen reductions in crops because their trees no longer get



sufficient winter chill. This has been going on for a few years now.







Also talk to the Canadian government. They are planning a new seaport



on their arctic coast to handle shipping through the North-West Passage.





David, why waste electrons on deniers of any stripe. They will always find "data" to support their bias. Even when global warming reaches up and bites them or their progeny in the posterior, their determination bias will burn fierce and strong (block that metaphor g)



HB





Hi Higgs,



The problem is that it is hoax. If there was anything to it

your would be presenting your data for peer review and not

pitching it as a religion ("Deniers"). You would not

have to resort to political correctness (mind control).



Any there is nothing biting anyone in the ass. The

hoaxers haven't got squat. Everything they predicted is

not happening. Ocean temperatures are falling.

It must be comforting for you to realize that you know more than the vast concensus of legitimate climate and other scientists, who have spent the last 30 or so years (at least since Hansen stood before the Congress and made his predictions) trying to "falsify" the data. "Falsify" being the standard procedure by which legitimate scientists compete world-wide to disprove a finding, proposal, theory.

HB

I have to believe that Hansen was sincere in what he was
saying. It is okay to be wrong every now and then.

Can you see where this is going? We are not having a
discussion on this or that piece of fascinating
research or discovery.

You are reacting to me the same way I would react to
you if you told me my God did not create the heavens
and the earth. I just know it to be true and would
summarily dismiss you (without the name calling
["Deniers"]) just as you are dismissing me. You know
it to be true and won't hear otherwise. Just as I
would not listen to you.


You are stating the bleeding obvious reason why I would not continue with
this. Has this only now occured to you? Perhaps you will drop it now.

D

On 10/03/2014 7:29 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:39:31 PM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:


But on that score, I still wonder why it is that the USA is such a

shining example of agnatology as the most recent example demonstrates

yet again. Sad.

I HAD TO LOOK UP THAT WORD. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED TO ME IN A LOOOONG TIME!
Snort, indeed!

I suspect that will you enjoy using it in your real life since you too
have been subject to a demonstration of it so recently. ;-P

On 11/03/2014 8:58 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

I have to believe that Hansen was sincere in what he was
saying. It is okay to be wrong every now and then.

Can you see where this is going? We are not having a
discussion on this or that piece of fascinating
research or discovery.

You are reacting to me the same way I would react to
you if you told me my God did not create the heavens
and the earth. I just know it to be true and would
summarily dismiss you (without the name calling
["Deniers"]) just as you are dismissing me. You know
it to be true and won't hear otherwise. Just as I
would not listen to you.


You are stating the bleeding obvious reason why I would not continue
with this.

I'd have thought that you wouldn't bother to continue with him because
he cites 'newsbusters' and its inaccurate report of '11 inaccuracies'
and making statements like 'There is no vast consensus. Just a lot of
sloppy research.'

Those examples, let alone the rest of what he's written, are enough to
make a person of reasonable sensibilities curl up and slink away in case
what he's got is infectious.

On 11/03/2014 5:21 PM, Todd wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:02 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/03/2014 8:58 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

I have to believe that Hansen was sincere in what he was
saying. It is okay to be wrong every now and then.

Can you see where this is going? We are not having a
discussion on this or that piece of fascinating
research or discovery.

You are reacting to me the same way I would react to
you if you told me my God did not create the heavens
and the earth. I just know it to be true and would
summarily dismiss you (without the name calling
["Deniers"]) just as you are dismissing me. You know
it to be true and won't hear otherwise. Just as I
would not listen to you.


You are stating the bleeding obvious reason why I would not continue
with this.

I'd have thought that you wouldn't bother to continue with him because
he cites 'newsbusters' and its inaccurate report of '11 inaccuracies'
and making statements like 'There is no vast consensus. Just a lot of
sloppy research.'

Those examples, let alone the rest of what he's written, are enough to
make a person of reasonable sensibilities curl up and slink away in case
what he's got is infectious.

Hi Fran,

You need to look at both sides. At first, it will hurt a bit,
but eventually you will get use to it.

I long ago looked at both sides both on the Web and in newsgroup and
quite obviously since I've read the drivel you have posted and the cites
you've given, I still continue to read both sides. I hope I never lose
my marbles sufficiently that I will be so uncritical as to accept what
is said by deniers.

I long ago concluded that deniers were either engaged in duping others
or were the subject of the duping. Deniers invariably selectively cite
and choose opinion over fact. That applied equally to Web based sites
or in newsgroups. No doubt it's all about money and following the money
trail would reveal who is putting up the money for the dupers to do
their peddling.

After a while
you will find it enjoyable. Broadens your understanding
of the world around you. You can also have wonderful
conservations with others as long as you are polite about
your differences and listen to others.

I have a retired college professor as a customer that
loves to talk politics with me.

He probably dines out on what you say.

One of the things I
adore about him is the way he repeats back what I said
to him to make sure that is exactly what I meant before disagrees
with me. We have the most wonderful conversations. And
because he listens and reflects what I say, I love listening
to him as well. Dude is one sharp cookie!

And the 11 inaccuracies where a British court.

Wrong. It's a single digit not even a big number like the 97% of
climate scientists who agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.

If you don't
like Newsbusters as a source, try a different source:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=11+inaccur...+british+court

Another cite that doesn't get the numbers right

And Newsbuster published a retraction:
Correction: Judge Finds Only Nine Convenient Untruths in Gore's Film:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ths-gores-film

That could be been a positive thing for them to have done if they hadn't
repeated the previously included 2 lies and hadn't attempted to smear US
press which had accurately reported the Courts edict on guidance notes.
I also loved the hypocrisy whereby they criticise 'the [US] press'
for failing to expose 'a charade' when the self same shabby,
hypocritical site didn't expose the highly manipulative and transparent
charade of Monckton's funding of the challenge before a British court.

Fran Farmer wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:

But on that score, I still wonder why it is that the USA is such a
shining example of agnatology as the most recent example demonstrates
yet again. Sad.

I HAD TO LOOK UP THAT WORD. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED TO ME IN A LOOOONG TIME!
Snort, indeed!

I suspect that will you enjoy using it in your real life since you too
have been subject to a demonstration of it so recently. ;-P

A more acceptible spelling is "agnotology".
Higgs would be more closely ascribed with:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnolotti

Todd writes:

You need to look at both sides.

A RWer that doesn't believe the climate scientists.
Tell me it isn't so.

Next you'll tell us the world is 6K years old, and we haven't seen the
real birth certificate. Maybe you have a story about hollow point
ammunition or ovulation just shutting down after rape.

I bet you have a lot of "scientific political" views.
Like a good sheep, you just feed at the trough of your masters.

You so funny.

--
Dan Espen

Todd wrote:
On 02/28/2014 08:48 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

Just a thought: With all that Pacific Ocean out there just
off-shore, why not scale up successful Israeli desalination
technology via a Manhattan Project-sized program.

HB


Hi Higgs,

Here is an idea. Threaten the Northern Californians that
if they don't send water down south, you will send people
up. You should be washing your cars in the street
in no time! :-)

-T

Santa Barbara is using desalination. They are immune to
the drought. I think it is an idea that have come.

Really? That's the reason?

http://www.independent.com/news/2009...s-rate-freeze/

Todd wrote:
On 03/06/2014 01:30 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

First I note that you have changed the subject and presented no
facts in rebuttal (again).

Hi David,

I don't have to. If I have a pet theory, say the moon is
made out of cheese, it is my job to prove it to you, not
the other way around. If you think temperature is rising,
then you have to prove it to me.

The Climate Change crowd has not got squat. Their computer models
are so bad they couldn't predict the sun will rise the next day.
Plus, they have been caught falsifying their data. And, they
name call ("Deniers") anyone that "Dare" disagree with them.
And there is no open debate as they refuse to listen to
contradictory evidence, which is overwhelming.

And even though I don't have to, here you go:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php

From your reference.

"So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and
together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled," says Willis. The
February evening he discovered the mistake, he says, is "burned into my memory."
He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on "ocean
cooling" to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he'd be talking about how
it was all a mistake.

On 03/11/2014 12:54 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
I long ago looked at both sides both on the Web and in newsgroup and
quite obviously since I've read the drivel you have posted and the cites
you've given, I still continue to read both sides. I hope I never lose
my marbles sufficiently that I will be so uncritical as to accept what
is said by deniers.

I long ago concluded that deniers were either engaged in duping others
or were the subject of the duping. Deniers invariably selectively cite
and choose opinion over fact. That applied equally to Web based sites
or in newsgroups. No doubt it's all about money and following the money
trail would reveal who is putting up the money for the dupers to do
their peddling.

Hmmmm. "Deniers." Other name calling. Interesting religious you have
there. Do you tithe?

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

we're allowed emotions.


much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a sewerage
system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only hitting the button
when required the use on toilet flushing is not that high. There are only
small savings there. Domestically, washing and showering use much more.
Gardens, golf courses, pools, fountains, hosing the driveway etc use
astronomically more.

to me this is poor design (especially in an arid
climate). if most of the water being used is for
washing then a graywater system which keeps the
water on site is much better for recharging the
groundwater and of benefit to the plants and animals.
polluting it with waste and then having to pump
it some place else, then to be cleaned up again
is really a huge waste of energy and resources.

yes, it is the primary sytem in use now in many
places but that doesn't mean it is the best way
of doing things.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig them
out.

if you can smell it, then it isn't operating
normally, do you smell nasty fumes coming out of
your compost piles?

to me this is not a good design at all if you
have a system that involves paying someone else
to clean up after yourself then you're quite a
ways from simplicity.

that a poorly designed or misunderstood system
doesn't work well isn't a mystery to me. but of
course, if the people using it don't maintain it
properly or understand it then it's not going to
be the greatest. however, if you're raised to
take care of things and understand what you're
doing it's not going to be a problem.

change can be hard, but this isn't beyond most
people once they understand the reasons for doing
it and the methods involved.


You can't pay someone enough to do it.

you don't have to pay someone to do it. do you
have to pay someone to carry a bucket of compost
materials out to the compost pile?


They are suitable for deserts not cities.

false. people compost in cities.


In high humidty areas they stay too wet.

improper design. improper use. improper
maintenance. people compost in wet or humid
climates.


But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks.

no, people only need water, food, air and
shelter. there is no need for piping gray
water off site. it is lazyness and habit and
a temporary illusion of richness (mostly due
to fossil fuel use).


Flushing with grey water is more practical.

only if you have the expensive system already
paid for and installed, but then that doesn't
deal with expenses of keeping it running or
the energy involved.

if in the future energy gets more expensive
and fresh water more scarce, you'll see a lot
more changes and rethinking of how we do waste
systems.

once you switch to an in place composting system
with any grey water being handled on site processes
then there's no need to pay anyone for waste
processing any more than you pay someone to put
things on the compost heap or scrub out a bucket.


the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your shit to a
waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have a honey pot
collection.

compost it on site and use it on site, no need to
ship it anywhere.


Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get serious.

i am, any reasonably normal person can understand
composting and accomplish it.

that is then, this is now, do we understand things
better today or not?


in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

it doesn't have to be, once it's contaminated
by poop that means the entire volume must be
cleaned up again. if you only had to move poop
and pee around that would be how much less per
person of material to deal with cleaning up,
processing or disposing of?

dehydrate it and reclaim that water, and then
you're down by another factor or two of reduction.
isn't that a much more efficient use of energy
and materials to deal only with the problem
instead of multiplying it?


Bird you haven't thought this out.

funny assumption, you've not seen my reading
list for the past dozen years.

a very simple system of handling waste from
people is quite possible that doesn't involve
having to move or dig out huge tanks. if you
are used to composting processes then it fits
in very well. that it will work even when the
power goes out, that it means valuable materials
don't leave the gardens, saves water, energy,
etc. that's all a bonus as far as i'm concerned.

take a look at _the humanure handbook_ it's in
third edition and online for free.

the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.


songbird

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:06:13 -0400, songbird
wrote:

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

we're allowed emotions.


much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a sewerage
system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only hitting the button
when required the use on toilet flushing is not that high. There are only
small savings there. Domestically, washing and showering use much more.
Gardens, golf courses, pools, fountains, hosing the driveway etc use
astronomically more.

to me this is poor design (especially in an arid
climate). if most of the water being used is for
washing then a graywater system which keeps the
water on site is much better for recharging the
groundwater and of benefit to the plants and animals.
polluting it with waste and then having to pump
it some place else, then to be cleaned up again
is really a huge waste of energy and resources.

yes, it is the primary sytem in use now in many
places but that doesn't mean it is the best way
of doing things.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig them
out.

if you can smell it, then it isn't operating
normally, do you smell nasty fumes coming out of
your compost piles?

to me this is not a good design at all if you
have a system that involves paying someone else
to clean up after yourself then you're quite a
ways from simplicity.

that a poorly designed or misunderstood system
doesn't work well isn't a mystery to me. but of
course, if the people using it don't maintain it
properly or understand it then it's not going to
be the greatest. however, if you're raised to
take care of things and understand what you're
doing it's not going to be a problem.

change can be hard, but this isn't beyond most
people once they understand the reasons for doing
it and the methods involved.


You can't pay someone enough to do it.

you don't have to pay someone to do it. do you
have to pay someone to carry a bucket of compost
materials out to the compost pile?


They are suitable for deserts not cities.

false. people compost in cities.


In high humidty areas they stay too wet.

improper design. improper use. improper
maintenance. people compost in wet or humid
climates.


But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks.

no, people only need water, food, air and
shelter. there is no need for piping gray
water off site. it is lazyness and habit and
a temporary illusion of richness (mostly due
to fossil fuel use).


Flushing with grey water is more practical.

only if you have the expensive system already
paid for and installed, but then that doesn't
deal with expenses of keeping it running or
the energy involved.

if in the future energy gets more expensive
and fresh water more scarce, you'll see a lot
more changes and rethinking of how we do waste
systems.

once you switch to an in place composting system
with any grey water being handled on site processes
then there's no need to pay anyone for waste
processing any more than you pay someone to put
things on the compost heap or scrub out a bucket.


the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your shit to a
waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have a honey pot
collection.

compost it on site and use it on site, no need to
ship it anywhere.


Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get serious.

i am, any reasonably normal person can understand
composting and accomplish it.

that is then, this is now, do we understand things
better today or not?


in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

it doesn't have to be, once it's contaminated
by poop that means the entire volume must be
cleaned up again. if you only had to move poop
and pee around that would be how much less per
person of material to deal with cleaning up,
processing or disposing of?

dehydrate it and reclaim that water, and then
you're down by another factor or two of reduction.
isn't that a much more efficient use of energy
and materials to deal only with the problem
instead of multiplying it?


Bird you haven't thought this out.

funny assumption, you've not seen my reading
list for the past dozen years.

a very simple system of handling waste from
people is quite possible that doesn't involve
having to move or dig out huge tanks. if you
are used to composting processes then it fits
in very well. that it will work even when the
power goes out, that it means valuable materials
don't leave the gardens, saves water, energy,
etc. that's all a bonus as far as i'm concerned.

take a look at _the humanure handbook_ it's in
third edition and online for free.

the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.


songbird

Word of the day:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/%20verbiage