Re: OT: Read this online... anyone have details

Snit wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <cumulus@xxxxxxxx> stated in post 4324B3EF.48C5DA53@xxxxxxxx on
> 9/11/05 3:47 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >>
> >> "GreyCloud" <cumulus@xxxxxxxx> stated in post 43234F1D.BFD612D7@xxxxxxxx on
> >> 9/10/05 2:24 PM:
> >>
> >>>> We can predict with reasonable accuracy that the stock market will be doing
> >>>> in 50 years.
> >>>
> >>> Not to be funny, but we can?? Far as I know, the long running bull market
> >>> from the early 80s will peter out here in a year or two. The advice I keep
> >>> getting is to save your money in a highly liquid account.
> >>> At this point in time, I'm in no position to gamble on short
> >>> term profits.
> >>
> >> Short term - true. Long term the market has been a good investment since
> >> long before the depression.
> >
> > At my age, long term is after I'm buried 6 feet under. I'd
> > like to spend my money now.
>
> Not only do I not have a problem with that, if you are getting older than it
> would be silly to gamble on short term gains in the stock market - at least
> as a primary strategy for saving money. At my age looking 50 years in the
> future is bit much as well, but the stock market is still a pretty good
> gamble.

For the young, yes. I would advise investments for the long
term.

> >
> >> Even counting the depression. Sure, things *could* change - but likely the
> >> trend will continue for the next 50 years.
> >
> > That's only if the markets aren't affected by any disastrous
> > events. The way things are shaping up, it could only last a
> > few more years and be done.
>
> Could be - there may be huge changes. But if that happens not sure *any*
> investment will matter.

This is one thing that I wouldn't advise any of the youth
these days. No one has a crystal ball, so the best advice
still is to invest wisely and don't go into debt if you
don't have to.

>
> >>> Water holds more heat per cubic centimeter than air.
> >>
> >> That is not in question. The fact that you presume it is in question is a
> >> straw man.
> >
> > It accounts for how the weather models work, according to
> > what I've heard from a weatherman.
>
> It is, no doubt, a part of the weather models. It is not, as far as I know,
> a point in contention by anyone on any side of the global warming issue.
>
> > The water temperatures that are measured in the southern
> > pacific helps them to determine whether there is an el nino
> > or the opposite is there. They don't use the air temps to
> > determine them, just measurements from bathyspheres. (sp?)
>
> Um, OK. Are their people in the field who are disagreeing with this? Why
> even bring it up?

Because the group that you support say that air is heating
up the water... ass backwards.
You know, the green house effect.

> >
> >>
> >>> It would take an awful lot of hot air to raise one cubic centimeter of water
> >>> one degree centigrade.
> >>
> >> You are here pushing the straw man that this is the claimed basis of the
> >> ocean's temperate change. You have not supported this claim. It is very
> >> unlikely you will.
> >
> > It is a fundamental property of air. Go look it up in a
> > physics book.
>
> Again you are pretending that the fact that air holds less heat than water
> is in contention and needs to be looked up. This is not honest of you.

Why do you bring up the issue of honesty??

> >>
> >>> The actual ratio can be looked up in a physics book.
> >>
> >> What does this have to do with man's influence? Again - are these facts
> >> questioned by anyone?
> >
> > Yes, by those that question the global warming group that
> > accuses man.
>
> If you are right and "those that question the global warming group that
> accuses man" really do question that air hold less heat than water that
> would certainly explain why they come to a different conclusion! Somehow I
> do not think you meant to say what you did. :)

We're on the same page then on this.

>
> It comes down to the fact that nobody relevant to this conversation denies
> that water holds more heat than air - at least not that we know of. Yet you
> keep bringing it up as though it were a major point in opposition to those
> you disagree with. It would be like me repeatedly telling you that those
> who believe man has an influence on the environment also believe 2+2=4...
> and then implying that those on the opposite side disagree with that.
> >
> >>
> >>> But it is why the vast majority of cars use liquid cooled engines rather
> >>> than straight air cooling. Yes, the VW in the past used air cooled engines,
> >>> but when large amounts of power are needed, there won't be enough room or
> >>> air to cool that engine. Sometimes one needs to use analogies that work to
> >>> prove a point.
> >>
> >> But you have not even started to make a point - you are simply implying that
> >> someone disagrees with well known info. Who?
> >
> > I already posted a link to a group that does question it and
> > their conclusion that mans influence on global warming has
> > nothing to do with global warming.
>
> Again you are pointing to people you *agree* with saying they *disagree*
> with a point you and I agree with. Do you mean to be pointing out flaws in
> those you agree with?
>
> I think what you *meant* is that those you agree with have made the same
> accusations you are... but can you find someone who actually *disagrees*
> with the laws of thermodynamics? Anyone at all? Even one person would be a
> good start.

How about the group that you support... the greenhouse gases
bunch??

> >
> >> Does *anyone* disagree?
> >> Please try to support your presumption. Please. I have asked repeatedly
> >> and all you do is repeat your presumption.
> >
> > Please stop dancing around.
>
> Dancing? I am asking you, kindly and with the word "please", to find *one*
> person who is relevant to the conversion who based their claims on things
> contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. One person.

The group that you support.

> Their actual claim -
> not what someone says is their claim. You cannot find a single person who
> actually believes the straw man you attribute to others.

There is no strawman... again we need to get back on the
same page here.

>
> You are dancing around this issue, but I am simply not going to accept your
> straw man.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> What you have done is present a straw man where you
> >>>> claim scientists are insisting air is heating up water faster than the laws
> >>>> of thermodynamics allow. You have not supported that accusation against
> >>>> these scientists.
> >>>
> >>> No, you understand their claims backwards.
> >>
> >> Whose claims? To be honest I have no idea what you are talking about on
> >> this. You are just making bizarre presumptions with zero support. No
> >> matter how often I ask for support you refuse to offer any.
> >
> > I think you never read the link I provide for you.
>
> Which link? The site you point to below supports the view that man's
> actions are altering the climate.

No, the one that said that 'global warming is caused by man'
is poppy-***.

> >
> >> <SNIP />
> >>
> >>> These groups, upon looking into them have liberal agendas
> >>> stemming from universities that have liberal agendas. Of
> >>> course there are a few that don't.
> >>> You can keep pushing the global warming lie all you want to,
> >>> but I don't buy it for a minute.
> >>
> >> You need not - but I would hope you would use rationality and not your
> >> political view to do so.
> >
> > I don't have a political view.
>
> You are being dishonest here.

I am??


>
> > I do view this as an agenda pushed by those with a political agenda. I'm
> > looking at the causes that could have relevance.
>
> Relevance? To what? Disagreeing with your preconceived political view?

Why should I believe that you do not have a preconceived
political view??
Funny, you should call me dishonest, when in fact you are
pointing to a group that is backed by liberals that do have
a political agenda. Same goes for the group that you
support... the NEA.

> >
> >>>
> >>> Oh, on internal planetary heating... why is it that the national forest just
> >>> north of Santa Clara has forest fires?? According to the USGS the ground
> >>> temperatures there, just below 11 inches, measures around 550 degrees F. And
> >>> this isn't even a volcanic region. So, are SUVs to blame for this too?? Or
> >>> is it all Bushs fault??
> >>
> >> Do you have support for your claims? Any support at all? Please!
> >>
> >
> > http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=938&category=Environment
>
> http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=910&category=Environment
> -----
> ISN'T THIS GOING TO TAKE A MAJOR FINANCIAL TOLL ON REALLY ALL THE
> GOVERNMENTS?
>
> Yes, it is. That's the really crazy thing about the idea that, for instance,
> the U. S. shouldn't do anything about global warming or reduce oil
> consumption or carbon emissions because to do so would cost too much for the
> economy. In the long and medium run, the cost of climate change is going to
> be infinitely greater than any cost of trying to mitigate it.
> -----
>
> Why does the site you point me to support the idea that man is effecting the
> envirtonment. Is that what you meant to do?

No it does not say that at all. I'm pointing to you about
the 500+ degree temperatures just below the ground. Did any
SUVs cause this? Do you think green house gases caused
this? I say it has something to do with the natural effects
of the Suns interaction with the earth. Do you know why it
is 500+ degrees??

> >
> > Notice the permissions given by USDAFS.
>
> Um, OK.

See?? I give you hard evidence about an area that is really
hot, and you don't even believe it. Now explain why I
should believe anything that you have as claimed evidence,
when all I see is hearsay evidence without any hard data to
back it up.
.