"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in
:


"friendlyneighborhooddisease" wrote
New Orleans would be doomed by a Cat 4 or Cat 5, if it hit directly.
A Category 3 striking nearby should not have caused the massive
flooding. The US Army Corps of Engineers, and their beloved Commander
in Chief, are responsible for the loss of that great city (the soul
of the USA, BTW.) You puppets have no idea of the kind of evil people
you support. Don't fret; you're about to find out.

How do you intend to counter their massive self delusion?

I propose the removal of their heads.

It's fun watching you Second Ammendment haters trying to fluff up your tails
and act tough...

On 31/03/08 19:03, in article ,
"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:


For example, are there still those who doubt acid
rain? Are there still those unconvinced about
the harmful effects of mercury vapor in the air
and mercury contamination in our seafood?

When the acid rain "controversy" was in mid-stage
I remember reading an editorial in the Wall Street
Journal entitled "Acid Rain, what Acid Rain", which
pooh-poohed the whole idea. The idea of spending billions
to clean up SO2 emissions on a "half-baked" idea
like acid rain was their main theme. One book I read
in the 80s had one chapter dealing with tactics to use
in blocking any solution to a particular problem. They
are obvious, 1) cast doubt via the media in the whole
idea and 2) push for more research in order to push back
in time a solution to a problem.

I posted on the subject prior to 2000, my first posting
was in 1995. In that posting I was ify about global
warming but stated "I tend to bet that global warming is
occurring or will occur in the next 50 years."

By 1999 I posted

"Global warming, being an hysteria does not mean that the danger does
not exist, just that it is a worry. *Atmospheric scientists are worried
about it. They also might see it as a source of research funding but
they pretty much realize this being a conflict of interest. The American
right, however, have a constant denial agenda when it comes to
environmental issues, mention anything and they will pooh-pooh it.
I lived through the evolution of the smog, acid rain and ozone hole
political reactions, it is always the same. This is the same crowd which
delayed AIDES research since they were not bothered by "queers" getting
killed off by God's vengeance. *So, pooh-poohing global warming is so
expected from the right wing political ideologs that it is expected.
Any politician who gets into environmental issues from the side of
"let's do something about it" it going to be knocked, Gore is a good
example. There is no political capital in this area, it is better to
condemn drugs, crime, and support family values." *

Several years ago, I saw a map indicating the
cancer "Hot Spots" in the US and the rates of
incidence. I don't think it was just coincidence
that it overlaid with the petro-chemical refinery
pollution along the Gulf Coast.

At one time I saw the numbers on rate of emphysema in the LA basin
as being significant higher than "normal". In LA, the first
anti-smog efforts were controlling the SO2 emissions from the
refineries in the Long Beach area (I worked about 6 months at
the Shell refinery in the 50s). In fact cleaning that up was
profitable since the sulfur removed (mercaptans) was sent to a
new Stauffer plant which produce sulfuric acid used in the refinery
process. However smog remained. The next step was to stop back
yard incinerator use, the smoke was thought to be the source of
the eye irritation. Science did eventually kick in and worked
out the complex chemistry of ozone generation, nitroperoxy compounds
as eye irritant.

And the chemistry is not over. My most recent copy of Chemistry and
Engineeing news states that a new reaction in which electronic
excited NO2 reactions with water to generate OH radicals has been
discovered. OH radical is the "work horse" radical in "removing"
hydrocarbons from the atmosphere (like methane) and there was always
some question on how it was being produced. It is more reactive than
ozone and fortunately is not in high concentration.



There are statistical methods for giving each
factor a weight but humans have a hard time
dealing with multicaused events, they
like to think in a single dimension.

Such as global warming and AGW?

Not excluded!

My god, Earl, you are starting to talk like Roger.
I guess when science is lacking bring out the ole
statistics argument. That will explain it all.
No need to have a good grasp on the details -
they all get washed out in the statistics.

If you want to see a statistical mess look over the papers
dealing with the effect of the death penalty on homicide
rates. There are perhaps a dozen papers in the last
10 years statistically showing a relationship yet a few
devastating analysis of these papers which show the
statistical faults in these analyses. All the statistical
studies I have seen use programs written for economic
analyses, which have been applied to social analyses.

In my area we used optimization procedures which are
connected to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is
one of the few modeling areas in which the results are
guaranteed. The variation principle says that if you
vary a wave function and the computed energy is better,
that is the right direction to go, so you mathematically
fiddle until you get the best result. It may not be THE
best, however. We have the absolute wave function of the
hydrogen atom but nothing larger (like the hydrogen
molecule) but we do very well. We are at the state
now of being able to obtain very good results on
system with hundreds of atoms and thousands of electrons.
In some cases, the structures (and microwave spectra)
o molecules never prepared in the laboratory but detected
in interstellar spaces have been computed.

On the other hand multivariable correlations are hard
in the social area. IQ tests are an example. If you
examined the Flynn Effect you find that for the same
group of people, IQs improved with time such that
the average person 20 years ago, using today's test
had a dull-normal intelligence.




I got a clue for you. Don't move to Houston.

My wife lived there once and hated it!

Texas has, generally, a poor environmental reputation.

I remember in the 1940s the first time Texas City blew up.
The worlds first experience with what ammonium nitrate can
do is mistreated.


How is CO2 put in the air by subduction - except
perhaps from the resulting volcanoes?

Right, in pushing carbonated rocks down to a level
where they will thermally decomposed, it is
the same process as used in manufacturing cement

CaCO3 + Heat = CaO + CO2

which come belching up volcanically.

The CaO will then reaction with the silicates for
from Calcium silicate.

Eventually the latter will weather and remove once
again CO2 from the air.

This scenario is opposite to the expanding sun
theory in which in a billion years the earth
will get cooked.

We sure have a lot of theories floating around
here, don't we.

I have only begun to theorize!



One theory is that the earth got a gamma ray
burst

Hey, I got an idea. Maybe it was a global ice age
that no one knows about that brought about the
mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous
instead of that meteor impact in Yucatan

That was a catastrophe of another kind.

The problem of having life in the interior part
of a galaxy is that problem of a supernova killing
everything. I don't what the death range is but
perhaps 100 light years. I have not bothered to
search it. But earth is in a wing towards the
oustide and probably not in danger. Most of
the stars within 20 light years are red dwarfs,
small, long lived, not dangerous and not too
interesting from a life standpoint.

For a list of the nearest

http://jumk.de/astronomie/near-stars/index.shtml

On Mar 31, 7:03 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
Earl Evleth wrote:

snip

There are statistical methods for giving each
factor a weight but humans have a hard time
dealing with multicaused events, they
like to think in a single dimension.

Such as global warming and AGW?

My god, Earl, you are starting to talk like Roger.
I guess when science is lacking bring out the ole
statistics argument. That will explain it all.
No need to have a good grasp on the details -
they all get washed out in the statistics.

You seem to have a block concerning applied Statistics. If you don't
understand why it can be such an efficient method for extracting
information from data collections, that is no reason to play down its
role. I doubt that you fully understand the complex chemistry behind
"pollution", yet you seem to accept that this occurs, nevertheless.

Bob Harrington wrote:
"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in
:

"friendlyneighborhooddisease" wrote
New Orleans would be doomed by a Cat 4 or Cat 5, if it hit directly.
A Category 3 striking nearby should not have caused the massive
flooding. The US Army Corps of Engineers, and their beloved Commander
in Chief, are responsible for the loss of that great city (the soul
of the USA, BTW.) You puppets have no idea of the kind of evil people
you support. Don't fret; you're about to find out.
How do you intend to counter their massive self delusion?

I propose the removal of their heads.

It's fun watching you Second Ammendment haters trying to fluff up your tails
and act tough...

Who said anything about the 2nd Amendment? I was talking about how the
dumb wingers let the elite fat cats plunder the USA treasury and then
flee to Dubai while we (and our kids, and their kids [you're still
paying for ****wad Reagan's "tax cut"]) deal with the aftermath.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Z I N N G G G G !

"Tunderbar" wrote
speakin' o' weasels.....

And Tunderbar appears as if by magic.