On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 03:02:59 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, Bruce
> wrote:
>
>> The majority of the world's scientists are all quacks? I guess your
>> definition of a quack is someone who tells you things you don't want
>> to hear.
>
>No Boobaloo. The majority of the world's climatologists are quacks
>shilling for a belief that you are swallowing whole. You've been told
>that crap pumped into your head by "news organizations" is true as
>well. True scientists produce repeatable results. Repeatable results
>cannot be produced by prognostication.
>You won't understand. Your entire belief system is spoon fed to you by
>liars and shills. Think for yourself. Just this once. For me.
>I'm glad that you're here to entertain me once again ;-)

So I have to choose between the opinions of the world's scientists on
one side and the insights of Sir Leo on the other.

Damn, you make it hard, man!

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:27:54 -0400, wrote:

>On 12 Jul 2019 songbird wrote:
>>Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> Are things this bad in your area? Or is it just here? I've been resorting to
>>> buying frozen stuff, especially for stir fries.
>>
>> where is here?
>>
>> i've not noticed it being too horrible other than for
>>celery.
>
>The quality and price of celery varies by season, same with all
>produce. I find our local market has good to excellent produce all
>the time.

Of course! Popeye lives there for a reason!

"Leonard Blaisdell" wrote in message
...

In article >, tert in seattle
> wrote:

> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever

Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.

leo

====

Notice how it changed from global warming to climate change <g> I
wonder if they have made up their minds yet?

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 11:59:05 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>"Leonard Blaisdell" wrote in message
t...
>
>Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>
>leo
>
>====
>
> Notice how it changed from global warming to climate change <g> I
>wonder if they have made up their minds yet?

They're finding Mediterranean insects in the Netherlands now. Also,
when we used to have holidays on the Mediterranean in the 70s, you
didn't want to step on "vives" (weever fish). They had a sting on
their back that hurt like hell. They're now finding them along North
Sea beaches.

Things are definitely changing. The only debate can be whether man's
doing it or not.

Left wing says: it's us, let's stop polluting. Right wing says: it's
not us, let's continue polluting. Why is this a left wing/right wing
thing? Common sense says: let's stop polluting regardless.

In article >, Bruce
> wrote:

> So I have to choose between the opinions of the world's scientists on
> one side and the insights of Sir Leo on the other.
>
> Damn, you make it hard, man!

Ahem! That would be Lord Leo to you, serf. Know thy place.
By the way, how's the weather? It's hot here. I think I'll put off lawn
mowing for another week.

[ObFood] Tough pork loin roast, gravy, Yorkshire and canned green
beans. The roast should have been used for gravy and discarded. Next
time, I'll go back to pork tenderloin. The pig that gave up the loin
must have been used to run a waterwheel.

leo

On 2019-07-14 12:36 a.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> In article >, tert in seattle
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
>
> Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
> That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
> selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
> learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
> taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
> benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
> them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
> Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>
> leo
>
Lot of ostriches here this morning!

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 06:40:55 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2019-07-14 12:36 a.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> In article >, tert in seattle
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
>>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
>>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
>>
>> Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>> That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>> selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>> learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>> taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>> benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>> them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>> Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>>
>> leo
>>
>Lot of ostriches here this morning!

It's okay for us to be ostriches, it's our grandchildren who will get
the full blast of our callous attitude.

On 2019-07-14 3:45 a.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

>> Unfortunately, that's going to cost some money and the biggest
>> polluters -the US and China- hate spending money.
>
> Our "leaders" can't reverse a climatological trend by spending our
> money. I wish that people took classes in charlatanism in high school.
> You and I seem to be at a philosophical impasse, as always ;-)

Many of the left leaners up here are crying for the need for a carbon
tax. They think it is the only way to stop global climate change. Yet
there is nothing in the government's plans to use the revenue for any
projects aimed at reducing emissions, other than the higher cost of fuel
causing people to use less. Meanwhile, out provincial government is
fighting the feds in the court. Ontario argued that we had already
reduced our emissions substantially over the previous decade without a
carbon tax, while other provinces' emissions increased.

"Jeßus" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:08:36 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 23:36:57 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:
>
>>In article >, tert in seattle
> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
>>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
>>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
>>
>>Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>>That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>>selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>>learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>>taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>>benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>>them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>>Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>
>But it's going very fast and it's very damaging. And if we're causing
>it -which scientists say is the case- then we can also stop it.

I really don't think so. And it isn't really all that 'going fast',
either. Presumably you must have heard of a solution if you say it can
be stopped? If so, please let the world know what that is.

>Unfortunately, that's going to cost some money and the biggest
>polluters -the US and China- hate spending money.

Your logic/biases are very questionable at times.

====

Oh I don't know. Our blessed outgoing PM is trying to spend ALL our
money for climate change as she goes. She needs a legacy you know.

We don't need money for anything after she has gone.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> > Interesting. I like top sirloin. Not so tough and very flavorful.
> > Best burgers I ever made was using ground sirloin.
>
> I find it tough. I prefer New York strip or ribeye.

For steaks, I prefer (1)ribeye or (2)strip. I have 2 10oz KC
strips in my freezer now. Just saying that the sirloin does have
a good flavor and the burgers made from it were way better than
regular ground beef. I wasn't comparing to ground chuck.

The one time I had a sirloin steak was at a restaurant. Fork
tender and delicious. I suspect they did a sous vide then quick
sear.

Are you sure you (and Jill) aren't confusing sirloin with a top
round (aka London Broil)? I'm not a big fan of that.

Bruce wrote:
>
> Things are definitely changing. The only debate can be whether man's
> doing it or not.
>
> Left wing says: it's us, let's stop polluting. Right wing says: it's
> not us, let's continue polluting. Why is this a left wing/right wing
> thing? Common sense says: let's stop polluting regardless.

I agree. I'm sure mankind could at least slow down the changes if
they tried. Every little bit helps. Only a small amount of people
do this though.

Especially in the last 100 years or a bit more, mankind is
literally raping the earth and quickly using up resources that
took millions of years to form. Removing vast areas of forests
that replace co2 with oxygen. Dumping all kinds of waste in the
waters. No other life form on earth does this kind of global
damage. We are a doomed species no matter what little steps we
take to stall the inevitable.

Even many people that "care" are often hypocrites. They preach it
but they don't live it. Our luxuries are to valuable to give up.

wrote:
>
> graham wrote:
> >Lot of ostriches here this morning!
>
> It's okay for us to be ostriches, it's our grandchildren who will get
> the full blast of our callous attitude.

Our grandchildren will fare just fine. Many generations later
will have issues no matter what we do now. Only a giant asteroid
will fix the earth.

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 11:59:05 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>"Leonard Blaisdell" wrote in message
t...
>
>Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>
>leo
>
>====
>
> Notice how it changed from global warming to climate change <g> I
>wonder if they have made up their minds yet?

They're finding Mediterranean insects in the Netherlands now. Also,
when we used to have holidays on the Mediterranean in the 70s, you
didn't want to step on "vives" (weever fish). They had a sting on
their back that hurt like hell. They're now finding them along North
Sea beaches.

Things are definitely changing. The only debate can be whether man's
doing it or not.

Left wing says: it's us, let's stop polluting. Right wing says: it's
not us, let's continue polluting. Why is this a left wing/right wing
thing? Common sense says: let's stop polluting regardless.

===

Yep. I agree absolutely about pollution!

wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 06:40:55 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
> >On 2019-07-14 12:36 a.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> >> In article >, tert in seattle
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
> >>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
> >>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
> >>
> >> Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling..
> >> That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
> >> selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
> >> learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
> >> taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
> >> benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
> >> them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
> >> Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
> >>
> >> leo
> >>
> >Lot of ostriches here this morning!
>
> It's okay for us to be ostriches, it's our grandchildren who will get
> the full blast of our callous attitude.


Naw...our granchildren and billions throughout the world will be living richer, better and more fulfilling lives becaause of free - market capitalism. In the time it takes to write this, hundreds around the globe are lifting themselves out of dire poverty:

Check out the nifty UN World Poverty Clock, amazing! Net reduction in world poverty today is about 16,000 individuals!

https://worldpoverty.io/index.html


Educate yerselves:

https://fee.org/articles/were-seeing...lobal-poverty/

"We're Seeing Massive Reductions in Global Poverty

Today, one person escapes extreme poverty every second.

Monday, June 19, 2017

he escape from destitution and uncertainty of subsistence farming is one of the greatest accomplishments of the modern world. More people live longer, healthier, more peaceful lives today than anytime in the past. Recognizing the enormous, positive effect of this gradual transformation is an important tonic to the narrative of pervasive problems and pessimism.

Getting Poverty Wrong

Most people are unaware that extreme poverty has been declining over time, despite its drastic reduction. In a recent survey, only 5 percent of Americans knew that the global extreme poverty had almost halved in the past 20 years. Two-thirds of respondents incorrectly thought it had doubled over that period.

One person escapes extreme poverty every second.

If Americans were more aware of the stunning progress in reducing global poverty, perhaps they would be less pessimistic about the current situation or the outlook for the future.

As the figure below from the Our World in Data project shows, the reduction in extreme poverty on a global scale is recent. The default mode for much of human history was poverty with its associated problems. (For more on poverty under capitalism, see "Extreme Poverty Rates Plummet Under Capitalism.")

Only since about 1970 has there been a rapid growth in the number of people living above the extreme poverty line and a drastic reduction in the number of people living under it. In 1970, about 60 percent of the 3.7 billion people living on this planet were still relegated to extreme poverty. Now, the figure is under 9 percent.

Source: Max Roser, €œOur World in Data.€�

Today, one person escapes extreme poverty every second, thanks to better economic systems, improved knowledge, and cheaper technology in most areas of the world. In just the past year, more than 32 million people have escaped poverty, bringing the percentage of the world population living under the international extreme poverty line from 9.2 percent to 8.7 percent. The United Nations projects that another 79 million people will climb above the extreme poverty line by 2020.

Least Free, Most Poor

The UNs project, World Poverty Clock, gives a real-time count of how many people have escaped poverty today. The portal also lets people see the different rates of progress by country and which ones are on pace to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030.

The rates of improvement vary by country. Some developed nations have all but eliminated this form of extreme destitution, while other countries such as India and China are making rapid improvements.

The steady climb out of poverty is the most important story taking place anywhere.

Africa remains an area with disappointing and unsteady progress. Some countries, such as Mauritania and Ethiopia, are on track to meet the goal of eliminating extreme poverty in by 2030. Unfortunately, many countries in Africa, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are moving in the wrong direction, with more people falling into extreme poverty each day.

The expansion of economic freedom has coincided with the impressive reduction in global extreme poverty, and nations that have embraced economic freedom have seen substantial reduction in the share of people living in destitution. As the Economic Freedom of the World report from the Cato Institute shows, the most free countries have the lowest levels of poverty, while in the least free countries high levels of poverty persist.

Source: Cato Institute et al., €œEconomic Freedom of the World: 2016 Report.€�

Institutions and public policies matter. Fostering free markets and personal freedom allows people to attain levels of prosperity unheard of just a few short years ago.

Still Too Many Are in Poverty

In some ways this steady climb out of poverty is the most important story taking place anywhere, and represents the biggest net benefit to the largest number of people of any development in modern history.

Too many countries are moving in the wrong direction.

Countries still have substantial room for improvement across a number of policy spheres and significant problems remain. Even with this progress, too many countries are moving in the wrong direction, reducing the scope of economic freedom and the resulting adverse consequences. At current rates more than five percent of the worlds population will still live in extreme poverty in 2030. That is a smaller share than today, but still far too many.

The drastic and rapid reduction in the world population of people in extreme poverty is something to be celebrated, and underscores how important it is to continue to spread policies that allow this great escape to occur..."

</>

Reprinted from Economics21.


Charles Hughes is a Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute.

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:27:54 -0400, wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jul 2019 songbird wrote:
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are things this bad in your area? Or is it just here? I've been resorting to
>>>> buying frozen stuff, especially for stir fries.
>>>
>>> where is here?
>>>
>>> i've not noticed it being too horrible other than for
>>> celery.
>>
>> The quality and price of celery varies by season, same with all
>> produce. I find our local market has good to excellent produce all
>> the time.
>
> Of course! Popeye lives there for a reason!
>

Yes, the absolute FINEST produce on the planet. By way of contrast,
poor Bothel rarely has any produce, and even when it does, it is
poor quality and VERY expensive.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 05:06:19 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, Bruce
> wrote:
>
>> So I have to choose between the opinions of the world's scientists on
>> one side and the insights of Sir Leo on the other.
>>
>> Damn, you make it hard, man!
>
>Ahem! That would be Lord Leo to you, serf. Know thy place.
>By the way, how's the weather? It's hot here. I think I'll put off lawn
>mowing for another week.

It's cold here. I'll put it off too.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 10:11:03 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Things are definitely changing. The only debate can be whether man's
>> doing it or not.
>>
>> Left wing says: it's us, let's stop polluting. Right wing says: it's
>> not us, let's continue polluting. Why is this a left wing/right wing
>> thing? Common sense says: let's stop polluting regardless.
>
>I agree. I'm sure mankind could at least slow down the changes if
>they tried. Every little bit helps. Only a small amount of people
>do this though.
>
>Especially in the last 100 years or a bit more, mankind is
>literally raping the earth and quickly using up resources that
>took millions of years to form. Removing vast areas of forests
>that replace co2 with oxygen. Dumping all kinds of waste in the
>waters. No other life form on earth does this kind of global
>damage. We are a doomed species no matter what little steps we
>take to stall the inevitable.
>
>Even many people that "care" are often hypocrites. They preach it
>but they don't live it. Our luxuries are to valuable to give up.

That's it.

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 05:06:19 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, Bruce
> wrote:
>
>> So I have to choose between the opinions of the world's scientists on
>> one side and the insights of Sir Leo on the other.
>>
>> Damn, you make it hard, man!
>
>Ahem! That would be Lord Leo to you, serf. Know thy place.
>By the way, how's the weather? It's hot here. I think I'll put off lawn
>mowing for another week.

It's cold here. I'll put it off too.

==

D.s been cutting ours. Nice and warm atm)

On 7/14/2019 3:08 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 23:36:57 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >, tert in seattle
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
>>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
>>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
>>
>> Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>> That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>> selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>> learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>> taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>> benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>> them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>> Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>
> But it's going very fast and it's very damaging. And if we're causing
> it -which scientists say is the case- then we can also stop it.
>
> Unfortunately, that's going to cost some money and the biggest
> polluters -the US and China- hate spending money.
>

Harder than spending money is lifestyle change. We don't want smaller
cars, less seasonal heating/cooling, not using a lot of packaging crap
we don't need. USA is probably the most glutoness energy user but it
has to be on some scale in the rest of the world too.

Let's do it. You go first.

On 7/14/2019 8:06 AM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

>
> [ObFood] Tough pork loin roast, gravy, Yorkshire and canned green
> beans. The roast should have been used for gravy and discarded. Next
> time, I'll go back to pork tenderloin. The pig that gave up the loin
> must have been used to run a waterwheel.
>
> leo
>
How did you cook it? Rare that I had a tough loin but can happen.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:42:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 7/14/2019 3:08 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 23:36:57 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, tert in seattle
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
>>>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
>>>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
>>>
>>> Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>>> That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>>> selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>>> learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>>> taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>>> benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>>> them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>>> Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>>
>> But it's going very fast and it's very damaging. And if we're causing
>> it -which scientists say is the case- then we can also stop it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's going to cost some money and the biggest
>> polluters -the US and China- hate spending money.
>>
>
>Harder than spending money is lifestyle change. We don't want smaller
>cars, less seasonal heating/cooling, not using a lot of packaging crap
>we don't need. USA is probably the most glutoness energy user but it
>has to be on some scale in the rest of the world too.

Yes.

>Let's do it. You go first.

I think individuals won't do it in large enough numbers. People are
stupid, greedy, lazy etc. That's why governments have to do it. Of
course, with Trump, nothing will improve in the US. Maybe in 2 or 6
years.

On 7/14/2019 7:15 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 11:59:05 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Leonard Blaisdell" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>> That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>> selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>> learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>> taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>> benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>> them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>> Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>>
>> leo
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Notice how it changed from global warming to climate change <g> I
>> wonder if they have made up their minds yet?
>
> They're finding Mediterranean insects in the Netherlands now. Also,
> when we used to have holidays on the Mediterranean in the 70s, you
> didn't want to step on "vives" (weever fish). They had a sting on
> their back that hurt like hell. They're now finding them along North
> Sea beaches.
>
> Things are definitely changing. The only debate can be whether man's
> doing it or not.
>
> Left wing says: it's us, let's stop polluting. Right wing says: it's
> not us, let's continue polluting. Why is this a left wing/right wing
> thing? Common sense says: let's stop polluting regardless.
>

Polar ice is melting for some reason. It is warmer no matter the reason

I just don't see how 7 billion people can burn millions of barrels of
oil and tons of coal and not have some change. We also generate a lot of
trash. Instead of dumping it, recover the energy.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:52:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 7/14/2019 7:15 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 11:59:05 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Leonard Blaisdell" wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>>> That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>>> selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>>> learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>>> taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>>> benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>>> them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>>> Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>>>
>>> leo
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> Notice how it changed from global warming to climate change <g> I
>>> wonder if they have made up their minds yet?
>>
>> They're finding Mediterranean insects in the Netherlands now. Also,
>> when we used to have holidays on the Mediterranean in the 70s, you
>> didn't want to step on "vives" (weever fish). They had a sting on
>> their back that hurt like hell. They're now finding them along North
>> Sea beaches.
>>
>> Things are definitely changing. The only debate can be whether man's
>> doing it or not.
>>
>> Left wing says: it's us, let's stop polluting. Right wing says: it's
>> not us, let's continue polluting. Why is this a left wing/right wing
>> thing? Common sense says: let's stop polluting regardless.
>>
>
>Polar ice is melting for some reason. It is warmer no matter the reason
>
>I just don't see how 7 billion people can burn millions of barrels of
>oil and tons of coal and not have some change. We also generate a lot of
>trash. Instead of dumping it, recover the energy.

With developed countries not cleaning up their act in a hurry and
developing countries only becoming stinkier, the planet will turn into
a wasteland.

On 2019-07-14 4:52 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Polar ice is melting for some reason.Â* It is warmer no matter the reason
>
> I just don't see how 7 billion people can burn millions of barrels of
> oil and tons of coal and not have some change. We also generate a lot of
> trash.Â* Instead of dumping it, recover the energy.

It has been melting back for 15,000 year, ever since a glacier deposited
a hell of a lot of sand and gravel less than a mile north of my house.

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 12:07:43 PM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2019-07-14 4:52 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > Polar ice is melting for some reason.Â* It is warmer no matter the reason
> >
> > I just don't see how 7 billion people can burn millions of barrels of
> > oil and tons of coal and not have some change. We also generate a lot of
> > trash.Â* Instead of dumping it, recover the energy.
>
> It has been melting back for 15,000 year, ever since a glacier deposited
> a hell of a lot of sand and gravel less than a mile north of my house.

It is said that the flapping of a butterfly's wing will change the weather in China. Paradoxically, people believe that burning tons of stuff every day for over a hundred years has no effect on our climate. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

On 7/14/2019 6:10 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2019-07-14 4:52 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Polar ice is melting for some reason.Â* It is warmer no matter the reason
>>
>> I just don't see how 7 billion people can burn millions of barrels of
>> oil and tons of coal and not have some change. We also generate a lot
>> of trash.Â* Instead of dumping it, recover the energy.
>
> It has been melting back for 15,000 year, ever since a glacier deposited
> a hell of a lot of sand and gravel less than a mile north of my house.

Apropos of not much: allegedly there used to be a land mass connecting
Russia with Alaska.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia

This "land bridge" disappeared into the sea some 13,000 years ago after
the last ice age. The face (and atmosphere) of the earth has always
been in a state of flux.

I do think we should stop treating the planet like one big garbage can.

Jill

On 2019-07-14 8:48 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 7/14/2019 6:10 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>> It has been melting back for 15,000 year, ever since a glacier
>> deposited a hell of a lot of sand and gravel less than a mile north of
>> my house.
>
> Apropos of not much: allegedly there used to be a land mass connecting
> Russia with Alaska.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia
>
> This "land bridge" disappeared into the sea some 13,000 years ago after
> the last ice age.Â* The face (and atmosphere) of the earth has always
> been in a state of flux.

I am confused about that. They say that when the glaciers melted the
water rose and submerged the land-bridge. That leave me wondering how
it would not have been under the ice when the ice caps grew so much they
covered most of North America. Since the ice was solid, people could
have come across on an ice bridge.


>
> I do think we should stop treating the planet like one big garbage can.
>
> Jill

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 18:35:30 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 18:07:22 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:08:36 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 23:36:57 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, tert in seattle
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
>>>>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
>>>>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
>>>>
>>>>Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>>>>That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>>>>selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>>>>learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>>>>taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>>>>benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>>>>them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>>>>Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>>>
>>>But it's going very fast and it's very damaging. And if we're causing
>>>it -which scientists say is the case- then we can also stop it.
>>
>>I really don't think so. And it isn't really all that 'going fast',
>>either. Presumably you must have heard of a solution if you say it can
>>be stopped? If so, please let the world know what that is.
>
>Reduce CO2 emissions, switch to sustainable energy, that whole story.
>
>>>Unfortunately, that's going to cost some money and the biggest
>>>polluters -the US and China- hate spending money.
>>
>>Your logic/biases are very questionable at times.
>
>That you question something doesn't necessarily mean it's questionable
>

Correct. This case is an exception, however.

On 7/14/2019 10:19 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2019-07-14 8:48 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
>> On 7/14/2019 6:10 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>> It has been melting back for 15,000 year, ever since a glacier
>>> deposited a hell of a lot of sand and gravel less than a mile north
>>> of my house.
>>
>> Apropos of not much: allegedly there used to be a land mass connecting
>> Russia with Alaska.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia
>>
>> This "land bridge" disappeared into the sea some 13,000 years ago
>> after the last ice age.Â* The face (and atmosphere) of the earth has
>> always been in a state of flux.
>
> I am confused about that. They say that when the glaciers melted the
> water rose and submerged the land-bridge.Â* That leave me wondering how
> it would not have been under the ice when the ice caps grew so much they
> covered most of North America.Â* Since the ice was solid, people could
> have come across on an ice bridge.
>
Allegedly they did, Dave. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert in
ice age history and early peoples or civilizations. But I'm interested
in them. I'm interested archeology and anthropology so when I see
something on TV (usually a PBS channel, or Discovery or History) I'll
stop and watch.

Some archeologists and forensic anthropologists believe ancestors of the
(current) Alaskan native peoples crossed that frozen bridge eons ago.
There seems to be some evidence of that. It's an interesting premise.

These days, DNA could be used to determine a link between decendants of
"native Alaskans" and people living in the remote areas of as what we
think of as Russia was 13,000 years ago. They could possibly determine
if there were any genetic links. Might prove there was a land
bridge/ice bridge at one time.

I'm sure they've thought of this. I'd guess it's hard to know where to
look for familial links on the other side of the Bering Strait to get
DNA samples. People who still live in remote areas? Remote areas, like
Inuit villages? Interesting.

Jill

writes:
>In article >, tert in seattle
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how a person can argue with "the 10 warmest years on record
>> have all occurred since 1998" - it's just data, and it needs to be taken
>> seriously, not confused with this sunspots crap or whatever
>
>Oh, that's easy! I lost my job in the late seventies to global cooling.
>That made me a sceptic. The grand data points on whatever graph you're
>selling have been collected by "climatologists" since then, when they
>learned that being a compliant "climatologist" means big bucks from
>taxpayer funding [government grants] if they can sell a program that
>benefits the various governments. Keep the populace afraid, and control
>them with blather and points on a questionable graph.
>Climate change is ongoing since our planet first formed.
>
>leo

sorry, I should have said argue effectively

conspiracies are ok as entertainment but they are not very convincing

On 2019-07-16 4:20 p.m., Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 18:35:31 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> My Drs. didn't tell me about the juice but since they saw my labs, they told
>> me to keep doing it.
>
> There is no known benefits of eating celery/drinking juice that
> would have any affect on blood panels. Only celery seed extract
> (not the plant itself) has been shown to reduce cholesterol.
>
In rats?

In article >, Ed Pawlowski >
wrote:

> On 7/14/2019 8:06 AM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> > [ObFood] Tough pork loin roast, gravy, Yorkshire and canned green
> > beans. The roast should have been used for gravy and discarded. Next
> > time, I'll go back to pork tenderloin. The pig that gave up the loin
> > must have been used to run a waterwheel.

> How did you cook it? Rare that I had a tough loin but can happen.

I browned it in a tablespoon of oil in a stainless frying pan on all
sides then chucked it in the oven at 350F for about a hour and fifteen
minutes. It was the diameter of a decent sized loin chop and about
eight inches long.
It did give up great gravy fixings which, to me, are essential for
Yorkshire pudding.
Where I normally shop, pork chops and roasts are made from overworked
pigs. Tenderloin isn't. I buy that on sale. Tie the two sides together
and cook them as a roast. That's ideal. I can't believe that I don't
have a picture of a tied tenderloin ready for browning, but here's a
picture of one already cooked.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2yth6byhzsmt7s/cooked_tenderloin.jpg?dl=0>
This ain't what we had.

leo

In article >, tert in seattle
> wrote:


> sorry, I should have said argue effectively
> conspiracies are ok as entertainment but they are not very convincing

Here is where the conspiracy is, my fulminating liberal friend with
your hair on fire. The conspiracy is within the government, education
and media to get all power and control and to support each other in
doing so.
That's what "deep state" really means.
Now, why the hell would I think that?
Think *unions*, buddy. They're all *union* run. Picture "Invasion of
the Body Snatchers". They already absorbed you. Oh No!
If they win, what's left of us can enjoy the dirt poor Utopia that you
envision as Paradise. I do support your right to believe nonsense,
because "That's America!"... so far.

leo

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:22:04 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, tert in seattle
> wrote:
>
>
>> sorry, I should have said argue effectively
>> conspiracies are ok as entertainment but they are not very convincing
>
>Here is where the conspiracy is, my fulminating liberal friend with
>your hair on fire. The conspiracy is within the government, education
>and media to get all power and control and to support each other in
>doing so.
>That's what "deep state" really means.
>Now, why the hell would I think that?
>Think *unions*, buddy. They're all *union* run. Picture "Invasion of
>the Body Snatchers". They already absorbed you. Oh No!
>If they win, what's left of us can enjoy the dirt poor Utopia that you
>envision as Paradise. I do support your right to believe nonsense,
>because "That's America!"... so far.

Don Leo, could it be that there's a higher percentage of paranoia and
PTSD sufferers amongst right-wingers?

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 18:35:31 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> My Drs. didn't tell me about the juice but since they saw my labs, they
>> told
>> me to keep doing it.
>
> There is no known benefits of eating celery/drinking juice that
> would have any affect on blood panels. Only celery seed extract
> (not the plant itself) has been shown to reduce cholesterol.
>
> We're closer to understanding the origins of the Universe than we
> are to understanding the human body. And a basic understanding of
> the former is necessary for the later. Especially with so many
> different races, not just the current ones.
>
> How many medical theories have been debunked in the last 1000 years?
> (bloodletting was my favorite, but it did cure George Washington's
> strep-throat. Drinking 1% bleach would have worked better).
>
> How many supported physics theories have been totally debunked (not
> superseded/incorporated) in that same time? Some of the best ones
> went straight from "predicted" to fact relatively recently. Even
> the "flat earth" theory has its use in several sciences.
>
> These medical fads (celery juice, beet juice last decade) are just
> fringe hypothesis with no basis in facts or even observation.
>
> ObFood: I'll call it "Dead Man Walking Taco" for breakfast. Fritos
> and Cheetos covered in chili, cheese, highly emulsified beef
> medallions, and baked beans. And I've still eaten less sodium, fat,
> cholesterol, and carbs than anyone else here in the last 4 days
> combined.

I took celery seed extract for years. Supposed to be good for inflammation
but didn't affect my cholesterol.

I don't need proof about the juice. Celery is cheap enough at Costco and it
works for me.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 22:58:42 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:15:37 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>> I drink it in the morning before I eat. Really helps with my digestion.
>>>
>>> Celery has the highest concentration of nitrates of any food.
>>> You'd be better off drinking a pound of bacon than 5 ounces of
>>> celery juice.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> Look up something factual for once in your ****ing life. It's only
> two measly little words.

I did look it up. It's good for me!

In article >, Bruce
> wrote:

> Don Leo, could it be that there's a higher percentage of paranoia and
> PTSD sufferers amongst right-wingers?

Vice versa for sure. I'm not of the group squawking "The sky is
falling, the sky is falling." I'm loving my new title. Thanks!

leo

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:12:41 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, Bruce
> wrote:
>
>> Don Leo, could it be that there's a higher percentage of paranoia and
>> PTSD sufferers amongst right-wingers?
>
>Vice versa for sure. I'm not of the group squawking "The sky is
>falling, the sky is falling." I'm loving my new title. Thanks!

Extreme left-wingers have a different problem IMO. They call everyone
who doesn't agree with them a fascist.