Re: President's Staff Idiots Trying to Kill LORAN

On Apr 11, 1:53 am, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:43:29 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:25 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:12:46 -0700 (PDT), o...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Quote:
According to our local paper this morning the money might rather be
spent on shooting dirt particles into the higher atmosphere to soothe
global warming. I laughed so hard that I had to hang on to my coffee mug.

End Quote:

Yet the proven technology of dumping iron dust into the ocean to
encourage algea growth and reduce co2 is ignored. Not that we need to
reduce co2,

Au contraire, we need more CO2. Plants love it.

But the plants we love to eat aren't likely do do as well with extra
CO2 as the weeds that compete with them.

---
What a load of ***.

"Aren't likely"?

Cheater, all that means is that you don't have any data to substantiate
your claim, but you want your bull*** opinion to be considered fact.

Don't be silly. Would anybody here read such data, if I went to thr
trouble of digging it up?
Have you goen to the trouble of trying to dig up data which might
prove me wrong?

Or, maybe I'm wrong and you _do_ have or can point to some data which
lends some credibility to your wild assertion that crop plants do less
well under high CO2 concentrations than do weeds.

There are lots more sorts of weeds that there are sorts of crop
plants. It's a certainty that some weed will have a metabolic oddity
that lets it take better advantage of higher CO@ than crop plants.

Got a link?
---

No. I've got a brain and I've got background knowledge. In this sort
of intellectual kindergarten, that's more than enough.

And the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is going to change the climate
enough that the places that we grow our food today aren't going
to suit the plants that we grow there now,

---
"going going"?

You do get excited about typos.

You don't know that for a fact, and your "we" makes it seem like you
want to be considered a farmer who has some a priori knowledge about
what crops will grow where, if climate changes.

We - in this context - is the whole human race, as should be obvious,
even to you.

You are not and you have no clue as to how climate change will affect
agrarian activities on Earth so, ISTM, a nice cup of "Shut The *** Up"
would do wonders for your already shattered credibility.
---

Your opinion about my credibity merely reminds the audience that you
don't know what you are talking about.

and in quite a few places,
there won't be enough rain to grow anything much (though there will be
more rain elsewhere so presumably the farmers will be able to pack up
their farms and move, if there aren't too many national borders
involved.

---
So now you think you know where the rain might not fall?

No, I don't, but New Scientist dug up a few climatologists who think
that they are better informed. You can find the article for yourself -
your credibility needs the boost that successfully completing such a
search would deliver.

How about a prediction?

Just a year, so we can track you?

You don't miss a chance to exhibit your ignorance and stupidity, do
you. Year on year predicitions are still pretty much weather
predictions rather than climate predictions, and the effect of the
rising CO2 levels does really get above the short term noise until you
start talking about decades or longer.

Forget the easily predicted Monsoon and the rainy season in the tropical
Americas, tell us something about the rainfall in Texas.
---

Consult your own local authorities. The general wish outside of Texas
is that it should stop raining on the state, so that the obnoxious
fauna that inhabits it would dehydrate into blessed inactivity, and
people don't make predictions because there's too much risk of hope
biasing the forecasts.

Do try to develop a slightly more widely-informed opinion about this -
correcting your superficial aphorisms is getting boring.

---
Sometimes boredom comes out of ignorance.

You criticize, and yet you spew the aphorism:

"But the plants we love to eat aren't likely to do as well with extra
CO2 as the weeds that compete with them."

And cite no reference.

It would be a waste of time around here - Jim Thompson would complain
that any reference that I cited came from a scientist who believed in
AGW. You haven't exhbibted quite this level of inanity yet, but I'm
sure that if I keep you posting for any lenght of time you will come
up with something eually entertaining.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.