CNews 22November09

Why does the phrase "Little Churchills braying into their cell phones" spring to mind?

  — Noj - 22 November '09 - 14:05

Noj! I can hear it. Churchill Mmm Mmm Mmm!

  — willibeaux - 22 November '09 - 22:36

"...arranging their power Thanksgiving lunches, far from the stench of 500,000 mis-educated undergraduates..."

  — Wm T Sherman - 23 November '09 - 15:12

Hey Gen'l! What's on the menu?

  — willibeaux - 23 November '09 - 16:40

Depends, Willbeaux. They have a "special" menu for the white oppressor kids. All the dishes have been left out in the sun for quite a while.

  — Wm T Sherman - 23 November '09 - 17:27

I could hear Wart in the background screaming, "scatter!"

  — sibyl () (URL) - 23 November '09 - 18:17

Happy Thanksgiving to JW and his merry band of Pirates!!

  — willibeaux () - 25 November '09 - 13:39

Same to you, willibeaux!

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 25 November '09 - 16:57

Does Wardo think "Turkey Day" is a national holiday honoring him?

  — CU Alumni () - 25 November '09 - 19:22

CU Alumni! Ain't Leroy a turkey?

  — willibeaux - 25 November '09 - 20:46

Hey JW --



Leroy help write any memos on global warming? Language looks the same -- phony and fake.

  — Frank () - 27 November '09 - 09:14

Seriously Frank?

  — Tyndale - 27 November '09 - 18:38

Well, well. Got a take on the East Anglia CRU matter, Tyndale?

  — Wm T Sherman () - 28 November '09 - 19:00

Tyndale, why don't you ever comment on Benjie's moribund blog? Too intellectual for you? Hahahahahaha. Seriously. How's that UN resolution on Israeli genocide coming, fool? Don't worry, Barack's coming to the rescue.

  — sibyl () (URL) - 28 November '09 - 19:39

Hey JW! I'll be 80 tomorrow. That makes me one older than the rocks in your back yard. :-)

  — willibeaux - 29 November '09 - 15:43

Sorry Willi, it doesn't work that way; the rocks are aging too. You'll never catch up.

Happy birthday anyway!

  — Klaymore () - 29 November '09 - 17:15

Actually Sibyl, I do comment on Ben's blog. As for the rest, I'm afraid I don't follow. I am horrified by Israel's "military campaigns" in Palestine, and I sincerely hope Obama and his administration can do something to stop the widespread murder of civilians, though it doesn't seem to be a priority.

  — Tyndale - 29 November '09 - 17:37

Ben still blogs? Where?

  — Klaymore () - 29 November '09 - 17:57

willibeaux! Happy birthday. Or, as your generation says, "Yabba-dabba-doo!"

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 30 November '09 - 12:26

Yabba-dabba-doo! Ain't dat from Fred Sanford JW?

Thanks for the birthday wishes.

  — willibeaux - 30 November '09 - 13:18

Sorry, T-dale, that was me. Don't hold your breath, Obama-wise.



And I counted your comments at the borefest known as Kick Him Honey. Seven, give or take, since the evil prick intentionally lost his second blog last April. Not bad. That means you've been the source of roughly 12 percent of his comments.



Good work.

  — jgm () (URL) - 30 November '09 - 19:07

And T-dale, love to hear your opinion on Climategate.

  — jgm () (URL) - 30 November '09 - 19:20

It's nice to know that my commenting activities and opinions are of interest to you Martin. "Climategate" was a result of poor judgment. New studies were recently released that showed global temperatures decreasing over the past decade. People like Rush Limbaugh took this as a demonstration that global warming is a hoax. Some individual scientist took it upon himself to avoid further misuse of data by misusing it himself. Bad science on his part, no effect on the over all debate. For the short version of what effect this has on my opinions regarding global warming, please see the following: http://miniurl.com/22841

  — Tyndale - 01 December '09 - 01:36

Additionally, the best energy policy for the future is the same whether you approach it from an economic, environmental, or national/global security perspective: aggressively develop solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric sources. We can sell the technology to the rest of the world, create jobs, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and end the oil-based transfer of wealth and impending global military catastrophe. End of debate.

  — Tyndale - 01 December '09 - 01:54

"End of debate" says the leftist, as leftists tend to do.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html



What if we aren't changing the climate with carbon dioxide emissions, and it's just changing on its own?



Anyway, none of the sources that you list will provide the amount of energy that we are using now. Most of them are not commercially viable on a large scale without government subsidy. Also, I see that you didn't mention nuclear. If we were in such dire peril from carbon dioxide, we would need every option, wouldn't we?



Maybe you would just like to see everybody coerced into using a lot less energy, and a lot less of everything else as well, for the moral improvement, and the necessary expansion of warm, safe and comforting government control over our lives. Yes, let's all be bony virtuous hippies who ride bicycles and wear clothes woven out of fibers extracted from leftover marijuana stems.



THE ALL-IMPORTANT IPCC REPORT IS A CRIMINAL FRAUD. IT PREDICTS NOTHING. IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 01 December '09 - 12:24

That URL again.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

  — Wm T Sherman - 01 December '09 - 12:25

Hey Tyndale! You mentioned hydroelectric power. The Bureau of Reclamation, USDI, has developed all of the viable dam sites in the Western states. How do I know this? I worked for USDI for 30 years before I retired in 1986. I believe the Corps of Engineers has the same problem although most of their dam projects are for flood control.



BTW! Are you kin to William Tyndale, the Christian Martyr, who was burned at the stake in the 16th century?

  — willibeaux () - 01 December '09 - 13:28

Hey Tyndale! A PS to my last post. Do you have any idea how many solar panels and windmills it's going to take to replace our coal-fired generation plants?

  — willibeaux - 01 December '09 - 13:31

It's your lack of commenting activity that interests me, T.



Sherm, at least Tyndale acknowledges that these "scientists" (though he keeps it singular) did wrong. But, Rush Limbaugh? Jesus.

  — jgm () (URL) - 01 December '09 - 14:06

Anybody else noticed PB (the blog, not the man) acting kind of wonky the last couple of days?

  — jgm () (URL) - 01 December '09 - 14:14

Yes.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 01 December '09 - 15:05

Wonky, how?

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 01 December '09 - 15:14

My comments hung up. Also, URLs run off right side of the page, and I think that's new.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 01 December '09 - 16:31

Hmmmm. I noticed today that the right column hangs for a while. Haven't seen the other problems yet, but I'm looking into it. Thnx, Gen'r'l.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 01 December '09 - 17:08

JWP: Well, sometimes when I try to scroll down on the main page the whole page smears and won't correct. And when I hit comments it won't let me in sometimes. Finally, when I post, it just sits there, not telling me whether the comment has took or not. It generally has, but I have to get out and come back to make sure. Weird. I suggest you move to Bogspot.

  — jgm () (URL) - 01 December '09 - 17:21

Seems fine, now, tho.

  — jgm () (URL) - 01 December '09 - 17:24

Fortunately there is development of all the sources I mentioned. Why are you all so hostile to an idea that could benefit our country and planet in various important ways? I mean, that was quite the rant Sherman, you even garnered yourself idiot status by "YELLING." Oh, and Willi, the hydroelectric I was referring to is an exciting developing technology based on using tidal energy to generate electricity. Why all this resistance without understanding? I really don't get it.

  — Tyndale - 01 December '09 - 21:33

"End of debate" gets you idiot status, Tyndale.



Why the hostility? Think for a moment about what is riding on this faked research. Then it will make sense.



This is not a good time to get a calm opinion on photovoltaics out of me.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 02 December '09 - 07:40

Tyndale! How many locations are there in our country where tides can be harnessed for hydroelectric power? Will the envonmentalists allow this? You never answered my questions about windmills and solar panels.

Are you a decendent of William Tyndale?

  — willibeaux - 02 December '09 - 10:41

JW! Do you have any info on the status of the Perfesser's appeal? Isn't there a deadline for the appeal to be considered? Just curious since Federal civil cases have a 60 day deadline to file an appeal. I know this from personal experience.

  — willibeaux - 02 December '09 - 12:16

Tynsdale:

“Additionally, the best energy policy for the future is the same whether you approach it from an economic, environmental, or national/global security perspective: aggressively develop solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric sources. We can sell the technology to the rest of the world, create jobs, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and end the oil-based transfer of wealth and impending global military catastrophe. End of debate.”

The best policy? For the future? As opposed to what, the past?

“Why are you all so hostile to an idea that could benefit our country and planet in various important ways?”

You’re confusing annoyance and hostility. If you have anywhere the intellect you think you do, you should immediately be able to tick off ten good reasons your “best” policy won’t be implemented anytime soon.

  — Fred - 02 December '09 - 16:06

Fred, the policy is best for the future, maybe not for the present, but in anticipation of peak oil. It is being slowly implemented for a visual example drive East on 70 or 80 for awhile and take a look. Why don't you tick off reasons for me? I need very little additional reinforcement for my ego at the moment.



Willi, if you throw in wave generators then the locations are nearly endless. I don't know who "the" environmentalists are, but I'd imagine they support clean energy alternatives. You're still not explaining to me why it's a bad idea to invest in alternative energy, all I'm getting is a lot of "it's gonna take a lot." Ok, fine, why aren't we spending more money on developing wave generators, thermophotovoltaics, better photovoltaics and windmills and fusion power? It's a huge problem, yes, why is that a reason to not try to solve it?



I'm continuing this discussion because I really want to know what the underlying reasons for your vicious opposition are. I'm not saying blow up the coal plants, I'm saying give more money to the very brilliant people working very hard to develop alternatives. How does that make me a bike riding hippie who wears weed stems?

  — Tyndale - 02 December '09 - 18:20

Tyndale! I'm not against alternative energy. Why aren't nuclear energy plants being considered?



BTW Tyndale! I'm 80 years old and wave generators are a strange concept to me. Can you tell me how they would work? How about a web site?

  — willibeaux - 02 December '09 - 18:53

My last comment seems to have hit a snag or gotten deleted, so here's the hilights:

-Nuclear=nuclear waste. We haven't gotten rid of what we have, it's in temporary enclosures, generating a bunch more before we have a solution would be ill-advised



-Wave generator (more correctly wave energy converter) takes the motion of waves (like in the ocean) and uses it to generate electricity. There are many designs in development one of the most promising can be found here: http://www.checkmateuk.com/seaenergy/



-My question about opposition wasn't for you if that's not your stance Willi, would love to hear Fred's response.



Finally, to bring this back to the sleeveless wonder's original question to me: The illegally obtained emails from one climate research institute do not change my belief in global warming, as they don't constitute contradicting research or an argument of any kind. I believe the individuals in question were over zealous.



I still believe in the greenhouse effect as it's part of what makes life possible on earth, I still believe we produce greenhouse gasses at historically unheard of rates as I'm not a vegetable, and I still believe increased greenhouse gasses=increased surface temperature because of Venus (the planet). Disprove any of those three concepts and I'll stop worrying about carbon emissions.

  — Tyndale - 02 December '09 - 20:00

Tynsdale:

“why aren't we spending more money on developing wave generators, thermophotovoltaics, better photovoltaics and windmills and fusion power?”

My point still is that until you do understand why we aren’t you aren’t part of the debate.

  — Fred - 02 December '09 - 21:58

Tyndale! Are you going to answer my questions about windmills and solar panels?



Are you a descendant of William Tyndale, the Christian martyr, who was excuted in the 16th century?



Thank you

  — willibeaux - 02 December '09 - 22:05

Willi, speaking of unanswered questions, I'd love it if someone would answer your earlier query and pony up any info about what--if anything--is going on with Ward's appeal. By my calculation his appeal deadline was almost a month ago.

Oh, and Ben's book looks like it might actually be cool; publisher's website makes it sound kind of like Richard Stark's "The Hunter" meets Charles Bukowski's "Pulp." Of course, I could just re-read both of those books, which I already own, and save myself the $16 plus shipping...

  — Klaymore - 02 December '09 - 23:09

Fred, you've just told me that until I adopt your position I'm not part of the debate. You've decided to employ circular reasoning instead of answering my concerns or contributing something to the discussion. That means we're done talking.



Willi, I'm not a descendant of William Tyndale, as far as I know. I've spent a lot of time researching and writing on this subject, and I suggest you do the same if you feel strongly about it, but I'll go ahead and do the research and number crunching for you just this once. Also, I'd note that no one is discussing generating all of our power from wind and photovoltaic sources alone, so your question is somewhat moot, and if you have any intellectual integrity you will not use the figures I produce for you as an argument against funding alternative energy sources, but I love a good math problem, especially with research involved.



In 2004 the US used an average of about 3.35 TW of electricity, and it can be assumed that's about the same for the figure today, as our usage has been roughly consistent since the 1970's, though it's been reported that a significant decrease in usage has resulted from the recession. Since this question is somewhat meaningless, I'm comfortable with the rough figure.

Modern industrial horizontal axis turbines produce from 1-6 MW of power. GE produces two sizes of turbine, one that produces 1.5MW and one that produces 2.5MW. We're talking about future development, so we could assume a higher output due to better effeciency. All of this brings a lot of factors to consider, so I'm gonna cut a corner and pick 2MW. Seems about fair.

3.35 TW * 1,000,000= 3,350,000 MW

3,350,000 MW Usage / 2MW per turbine = 1.675 Billion turbines to power the US when the wind is blowing.

This is obviously a completely unreasonable goal. That's exactly why we need to aggressively develop all sources available, as well as funding the development of new technologies like fusion.

Now let's do solar, I'll just do it in square meters assuming top efficiency (about %25). Approximately 1KW/M^2 of sunlight strikes the US on average. That means a square meter of today's advanced panels produces .25KW/M^2.

3.35TW * 1,000,000,000 = 3,350,000,000 KW usage / .25 KW/M^2 = 13,400,000,000 or 13.4 quadrillion square meters of Solar Panels to power the entire U.S. The area of the US is 9,826,630,000,000 or 9.83 quintillion square meters. We could power the entire country just on solar by covering 1.3-1.4% or so of our area with solar panels, which doesn't actually sound all that unreasonable. I mean, we could just build it over the uninhabitable parts of Arizona and New Mexico, if we threw in the uninhabitable part of Texas (all of it) we could power the world.

Once again this is all beside the point, but to finally answer your question, if we split it just between solar panels and wind turbines 50/50 we'd need 837 million turbines plus 6.7 quadrillion square meters of solar panel.

Note: I did the panels from average sunlight energy, which means that's an average of when the sun is and isn't shining, but the windmill figure is only good when the wind is blowing. It's not a perfect answer, provided to a pointless question, but it was a hell of a lot of fun. Thanks for the exercise.

  — Tyndale - 02 December '09 - 23:19

Wow, it must be late. I misnamed almost all those numbers. The raw figures are all still good though.

  — Tyndale - 02 December '09 - 23:27

Just take a factor of 1000 off of all the named numbers. "Quadrillion = Trillion" etc.

  — Tyndale - 02 December '09 - 23:30

Nevermind, the naming's all jacked up. From the raw numbers again, just the final answer, is:

If we split it just between solar panels and wind turbines 50/50 we'd need 837 thousand turbines plus 6.7 Billion square meters of solar panel (.65-.7% of US area). Remember if that turbine figure sounds low it's because it assumes the wind is always blowing. You'd need more like four or five times that number in reality.

  — Tyndale - 02 December '09 - 23:44

Yes, it must indeed be late if Tyndale admitted making a mistake.

  — Klaymore () - 03 December '09 - 00:00

Tynsdale:

“Fred, you've just told me that until I adopt your position I'm not part of the debate.”

That’d be a little hard as you have no idea what my position is.

However, you went ahead and beautifully illustrated the point I’ve been making. Just because you can work a calculator (kind of) doesn’t mean that you have a grasp of energy policy. And most particularly, why your calculator driven opinion isn’t being and won’t be adopted.

It’s the eight-grade level thinking that gives you away. Something like—‘Just plant a billion acres in soybeans and world-wide hunger is solved. Case closed.’ So earnest, so immature.

So, I’ll say it again. Until you comprehend just why your type of assessment isn’t going to work you just annoy readers.

  — Fred - 03 December '09 - 00:56

Tyndale, the argument is being made that we should give up what we have before long before it runs out, and long before there is anything to replace it. The faked research is used to support that claim.



There is a lot more in the file than just e-mails. But, regarding those e-mails "illegally obatained from one climate institute,"



1. The e-mails are correspondence with a web of major climate researchers from around the world.

2. "That one research institute" is largely reponsible for creating the UN IPCC report, used by nearly everyone to justify extreme measures to control carbon dioxide emissions.

3. The file was almost certainly leaked by somebody on the inside, i.e. a whistleblower. The researchers were doing illegal things themselves - conspiring to evade FOI requests.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 03 December '09 - 09:11

Tyndale! Thank you for the calculations for wind and solar power. Very impressive. Your exhaustive research into your ancestry is much appreciated and satisfies my curiosity. Thanks again for your patience with this ole vet.

  — willibeaux - 03 December '09 - 09:12

Tyndale: I have no problem with alternative energy sources, per se. My ranch is off the grid and we've been producing our own electricity for over ten years now.



What I strenuously object to (and I suspect this is the fundamental objection most have) is being required to pay for development of whatever the government thinks will solve "the current crisis."



As a refresher, governments have found the following to be problems that each required a drastic solution: Miscegenation, the Jews, Indians, adultery, impiety, witchcraft.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 03 December '09 - 12:22

willibeaux! I have found no new news on the Churchill legal wranglings. I'll keep looking.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 03 December '09 - 12:25

1. Tyndale, 1 kW per square meter of sunlight energy is not the average power, it is the peak power, i.e. the amount that strikes the Earth's surface on a cloudless day, at noon, in the summer.

Account for haze and clouds, night time, reduced light intensity in morning and evening, and seasonal variation, and the average power is just a fraction of 1000 W/m2, even in the desert. Let's put it at about 250 watts per square meter. That's generous

2. Nobody is fielding 25% efficient photovoltaics at this time. It's possible to manufacture them, but that's not what is being installed in current large systems. Actual effiency is more like 12%, and that decreases over time - after 20 years or so, the efficiency drops to the point that the units have to be replaced.

0.12x250 W/m2 = 30 W/m2 average.

(3.4x10^12 W)/(30 W/m2) = 1.1 x10^11 m2

Your figure of 1.3x10^9 m2 is about 100 times smaller than this. I'll give you your 25% efficiency and say only 5x10^10 m2.

3. 3.4 terawatts is a figure for U.S. electrical use. Total energy use is about 5 times that.

I am not opposed to developing new sources of energy. However, as I stated before, environmentalists are urging us to give up what we are using now, with nothing available to replace it. Talk about solar and wind is just talk until we actually have a scheme that is based on something more than optimism and good intentions. Note that we are also being urged to give developing countries like China and India a free pass on their own carbon emissions. The research from East Anglia CRU and their cronies is the main justification cited. If the research is crap, then it matters.

The current Democrat-proposed carbon-limiting bill, cap-and-trade, will not decrease carbon output significantly anyway, just force us to pay a lot more for everything; money flows to the government, well-connected corporations, and Al Gore. It's a scam. It was invented by Enron, by the way. The IPCC report is used to justify it even though it doesn't do anything about carbon emissions.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 03 December '09 - 14:28

General, how 'hostile' of you!

  — Fred - 03 December '09 - 14:41

"aggressively develop solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric sources" = break their wrists (and/or knee caps), spit it their faces, frag their commanding officers, plagiarize their essays, phone them and threaten them in the middle of the night, leave them menacing voicemail messages, get them drunk and chase them into highway traffic, misspell their names, etc. etc. etc.

  — Aaron - 03 December '09 - 15:02

Tynsdale:

“I love a good math problem, especially with research involved.”

Excellent! Tell me the total cost for installing 5x10^10 m2 of solar panels. You can leave out all the auxiliary costs (environmental studies, court fights, union problems and on and on), just the manufacture, land acquisition and installation costs. Leave out power transmission costs, power corridor rights-of-way, and so on, just the generation infrastructure.

Then, divide that figure by the population of American citizens and call it a head tax for the solar part of your energy policy. So, what’s the number?

  — Fred - 03 December '09 - 15:44

Gen'l! Thank you for further clarification of my questions to Tyndale.

  — willibeaux - 03 December '09 - 16:13

Hey Fred! The issue appears to be not as simple as we novices are lead to believe.

Thanks for your comments.

  — willibeaux - 03 December '09 - 16:17

Impiety? Damn. So jwp, what do you have in place up there to get you off the grid?

  — jgm () (URL) - 03 December '09 - 18:34

jgm: Huh?

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 04 December '09 - 09:50

At your house with the fancy bathrooms. You said you were off the grid energy-wise. How? What's your setup?

  — jgm () (URL) - 04 December '09 - 14:10

Fancy bathrooms? 2 holers or 4 holers?

  — willibeaux - 04 December '09 - 14:17

JW! I checked with a neighbor who was a former Jeffco county judge. She looked up the statute on appeals. Leroy had 45 days from the last ruling by Judge Naves to file his appeal. She knows Lane and was of the opinion that Lane would not put up any more of his money for Leroy's appeal. Maybe your sleuth, Leah can find out if Lane filed Leroy's appeal.

  — willibeaux - 04 December '09 - 18:53

willibeaux! Hope so. In both cases.



jgm: Deep-cycle batteries replenished by solar panels (and occasionally) a back-up lp-powered generator (10kw). Oh, and a backup backup generator (gasoline powered). I don't recommend buying such a system; it's like paying every utility bill you will ever have all at once. OTOH, after the initial sticker shock wears off, it's gratifying to have a power system that pretty much runs on distilled water (for the batteries).

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 04 December '09 - 19:32

regardless of anyone's fiction, raw data for atmospheric and ocean temperatures is available for centuries, and a variety of natural rings and layers extend the record back further. Younger scientists like to make a name for themselves by discovering evidence that prior studies didn't take into account a crucial piece of understanding, or were measuring the wrong thing or didn't piece things together correctly. Someone surely could make a splash by demonstrating that there is no climate change or that the anthropogenic component is small, which would be possible using already existing and freely distributed data, and requiring no field work or grant funding to set new temperature gauges. I work with someone on the IPCC report, and regardless of what the blogs say, nearly all the university and climate institutes distribute their data. If you claim there is uniform 'leftist' publication bias at all the atmospheric/oceanography journals, there is still lots of potential for moving to journals in nearby fields.

  — Sibyl - 05 December '09 - 09:17

Partly depends on whether there's any money in it, Sibyl. Finding out that things are OK does not bring the funding.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 05 December '09 - 10:33

JW! I hope you still have your "vintage comfort station" in good working condition in the event that your power system goes "south".

  — willibeaux - 05 December '09 - 12:51

willibeaux, Churchill's appeal was already filed. The wait now is for a hearing by the appellate court, which is not expected to happen until late next year.



A more immediate question is: Will Churchill cough up the $15K for his share of the trial transcription costs? If Churchill won't commit $15K of his own, then is Lane willing to front that money to get himself more media attention?

  — Noj - 05 December '09 - 14:28

JWP: Figured it was something like that, and I don't even want to know how much the initial investment would be. Actually I did look into it some when we bought this place and quickly decided to caulk the freakin' windows &tc. instead. That kind of tech makes more sense on a new build than on a hundred-year-old house. I think.



So another question: where do get your water?

  — jgm () (URL) - 05 December '09 - 15:33

jgm: A well. We got lucky and hit good water 125 feet down (we'd heard horror stories of wells over a thousand feet deep a few miles away). Of course, the well went in before anything else was built here.



We have some surface water in a creek that runs through the property, and a few seeps that stay green unless covered with snow. And we've developed a couple of springs for livestock water. Not enough to irrigate with (even if that were legal, which it isn't; Aurora bought up pretty much all the surface water rights in Park County back in the '60s). I piss in the creek whenever possible. Drink up, Aurora.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 05 December '09 - 17:42

Hi Noj. Could you link to the pleadings, if they're online? I'd love to read them in sequence. Thx.

  — [Klaymore] - 05 December '09 - 19:56

Noj! Thanks for the update on Leroy.

  — willibeaux () - 05 December '09 - 20:43

I tried getting off of my lazy ass and finding the pleadings my own damn self, but the District Court's page doesn't offer a records search ( http://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Program.cfm/Program/11 ), and the Appellate Court's page ( http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Index.cfm ) has no records link. Of course, as Tyndale has pointed out, I don't know how to use a computer, so corrections are welcome.

  — [Klaymore] - 05 December '09 - 20:50

If you take a look at this PB post from August containing an explanation of the appeal process from CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke, you can surmise that we're not seeing anything happening or being filed because anything that takes place right now consists of behind-the-scenes paper-shuffling.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 05 December '09 - 21:42

Yeah, I've heard stories like that, jwp. Why I axed. Saudi Aurora. Blech.



Noj: Chutch will cheerfully pony up (well, pony up, anyway--he's never done anything cheerfully). But isn't that a minor cost overall? Can't imagine Lane taking another huge hit no matter the pub value. And there's no way any fund drive is going to get anything. So with any luck Chutch will be on the hook for much more than $15,000.

  — jgm () (URL) - 06 December '09 - 19:01

Permission to feed the troll?



"regardless of anyone's fiction, raw data for atmospheric and ocean temperatures is available for centuries, and a variety of natural rings and layers extend the record back further."



Sybil, the director of the CRU, Phil Jones, says the raw data is gone. That's whose fiction you are disputing. He also says natural rings are accurate until 1960 at which time they became inaccurate. In other words, the rings showed 1960+ to be too cool for his agenda. Why he thinks pre-1960 is okay is anybody's guess. Here's mine: tree rings show cooler global temps and form a nice hockey stick (as long as you ignore the Medieval Warming Period) when the switch is made in 1960.



Steve McIntyre isn't so young.



"I work with someone on the IPCC report, and regardless of what the blogs say, nearly all the university and climate institutes distribute their data."



This is at that "upscale mall" that you told us about? Why did I think you are in retail selling a "green" product? What do you do there? What's your friend's "position description" or at least, job title?



"If you claim there is uniform 'leftist' publication bias at all the atmospheric/oceanography journals, there is still lots of potential for moving to journals in nearby fields."



For example? And do you think it's okay for a science journal to have a polical bias when choosing who they will publish? How about the news? Should they fail to report stories because of a polical bias?



I know you won't answer in any thoughtful or meaningful way but I just had to ask.

  — Laurie - 06 December '09 - 23:25

Good show Laurie Darlin'!

  — willibeaux - 07 December '09 - 13:08

I agree, Willi! Tho I get tired, so, so tired, of using exclamation points in doing so!

  — jgm () (URL) - 07 December '09 - 18:50

This is off the subject but I thought it might be worthy of some comment.

If the Climategate debacle continues to heat up (no pun intended) we may see the greatest ambulance chase since the Union Carbide Chemical tragedy at Bhopal India a number of years ago. Lawyers from all over the world flocked to India with visions of huge fees for representing victims and survivors.

Big Al may be faced with a similar threat and may flee to a country which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

This could give David Lane an opportunity to recoup some of his money that he lost on the Perfesser's clam bake.



Check the following link for information about Bhopal if you are interested:



http://studentsforbhopal.org/learn

  — willibeaux - 07 December '09 - 22:26

does anyone want to see if any of you can answer some questions from our earth science for nonmajors (2cr) exam? Here is one to start (you can use a search engine): the most prominent pattern of global rainfall is reflected in bands of high rainfall at the equator 0deg latitude, and 45-50deg N and S, and bands of low precipitation at 30deg and >60deg N and S. What process drives this pattern? Which regions are characterized by high air pressure and low air pressure values?

  — Sibyl - 08 December '09 - 08:30

Low pressure at equator because solar heating causes air to rise. Rising air = low pressure = tendency to precipitate. Heated air moves to mid latititudes where some if it descends. Descending air = high pressure = lack of precipitation. Equatorial air that continues further toward pole collides with cold artic air and rises again because it is warmer than arctic/antarctic air. Again, rising air = low pressure = tendency to precipitate.



Now one for you, 'Sibyl.' Reporting temperature history using a time series of proxy temperature readings until they diverge from instrumentally-measured temperatures, then switching over to the measured temperatures, and graphing the whole thing together without telling anybody, is an example of scientific _______.



Bonus: Being an apologist for statists who want to use said graph to take our money and freedom is an example of _____ sucking.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 08 December '09 - 08:51

It is all coming apart. Must resist sociological explanations. Gotta dance (gotta dance gotta da-ha-ha-ha-ance).

  — jgm () (URL) - 08 December '09 - 22:37

A for Gen. Sherman. Convection cells (Hadley, Farrell). High pressure at ~20deg and the poles where dry air falls.



Amy Goodman doesn't support carbon credit trading and views it as some sort of scam. It seems to be an option ranked about 4th out of the top 10 options by science, but the only one that the global bodies of governance are able to negotiate.



Here's another question.

Air tends to flow from high to low pressure areas. The coriolis effect causes bodies of air or water to bend (clockwise, counterclockwise) in the northern hemisphere and -- in the southern hemisphere. The tropical band of winds dominating the equatorial region 20S to 20N are called the --- and tend to blow in the -- direction. In contrast, the westerly winds occur around -- latitude and blow towards the --.



These winds drive ocean currents. Name two characteristics of an eastern boundary current and western boundary current. What two factors strongly define the distribution of corals globally?

  — Sibyl - 09 December '09 - 21:23

Sibyl! This is a high tech question. Because of the coriolis effect in our northern hemisphere, is that the reason the water in the commodes flush clockwise?

  — willibeaux - 10 December '09 - 17:24

Finish the General's quiz first, Sybil. Just be honest while you fill in the blanks; it will make you feel good.

  — Klaymore - 10 December '09 - 19:50

Sibyl - Integrate the function y = sin(x) + 11.25x +1.57ln(x)/2x over the interval from x = 0 to x = pi. Then fill a one gallon zip lock bag with mustard and wear it like a hat. Then walk through your neigborhood, flapping your arms and calling out "I'm a strange bird."



Simon says.



But first answer my questions, dummy.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 11 December '09 - 10:25

General:

I assume you mean the whole quantity divided by 2x: 62.2051 Otherwise: 60.0141

  — Fred - 11 December '09 - 16:21

"Reporting temperature history using a time series of proxy temperature readings until they diverge from instrumentally-measured temperatures, then switching over to the measured temperatures, and graphing the whole thing together without telling anybody, is an example of scientific _______."



Just to help you out, Syb. My grandfather's name was Claude. The answer rhymes with that.

  — jgm () (URL) - 11 December '09 - 18:35

Which one of you dem dere pirates gonna confirm what I said about Coriolis force and commodes? :-)

  — willibeaux - 12 December '09 - 13:36

Fraud JG fraud! :-)

  — willibeaux () - 12 December '09 - 14:02

“These winds drive ocean currents. Name two characteristics of an eastern boundary current and western boundary current.”

The Sibyl questions are interesting in that they’re very distant from the practice and subject of science. Apparently, they’re what people like Sibyl think science is. But they’re the product of science—consumer information. It’s kind of like confusing consumer products with the subjection of industrialization.

Being able to name fundamental particles does not a particle physicist make.

  — Fred - 12 December '09 - 15:17

Sybil,

Well, the questions were designed to impress upon us how ignorant most of us are about science. Again, I confess that I don't know everything about everything. I depend on the expertise of many people. When I find that experts are hiding information concerning their research and coming to conclusions by design, reworking their reports to conform to the conclusions of others, locking out those who don't and calling them "flat earthers", I become suspicious.



Tyndale, perhaps if our government, by far the largest funding source for science, hadn't spent billions on global warming "research" over the last 30 years, our best and brightest might have been employed to develop viable, large scale, renewable energy sources.

  — Laurie - 12 December '09 - 17:12

Anybody else noticed the sudden disappearance of Tyndale in the face of substantive questions?

  — jgm () (URL) - 12 December '09 - 21:40

It's a coincidence, jgm. He's just done wasting his valuable time on people who are unworthy of it, is all. And as always, he was not actually naively, stunningly wrong - no, he was testing us, and we were too dumb to realize it, and wecompounded our beclownment by taking it all way too seriously.



Lighten up, wingnuts.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 12 December '09 - 23:34

Just noticed jwp's new tagline from Wart: Ho, ho. Very funny. All I can say is, reverse the polarity!

  — jgm () (URL) - 14 December '09 - 18:08

Ya gotta love that smug superiority in the face of impending doom. Bet The Perfesser whistles past graveyards, too. BTW: those taglines at the top of the page rotate. You can see them all here.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 14 December '09 - 23:40

Ah, those take me back.

  — jgm () (URL) - 16 December '09 - 16:40

Holy lord is this a thread.

In Tyndale's defense, wherever he's gone, stupid questions beget stupid answers, ans it was a very stupid answer. Is there anyone who actually thinks we can power the world with wind and solar alone?

Sybil, I'm having trouble tracking the relevance of any of what you said.

Also, trying to show off with basic Calc is beneath all of you, not impressed.



Is the rest of this worth reading? It looks inane. Somebody give me a summary.

  — Backfat - 22 December '09 - 19:41

Wasn't trying to show off. Was providing an irrelevant question for her to run off and answer, just like she put to us. Simon Says it was sarcasm.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 23 December '09 - 10:50

A gallon bag of mustard? I'm wearing one now! (Just trying to keep the thread going, whether it deserves it or not.)

  — jgm () (URL) - 23 December '09 - 14:07

I also resent the implication that anything is beneath me. I'm as petty as they come.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 23 December '09 - 14:09

No trackbacks:

Trackback link: