twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 11 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lie of the Year
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/631768a4d3953f6e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 8:45 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Wes" <clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:6zoXm.413104$Jp1.84064@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm 61. I'm on Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Sheesh, don't age me faster than
>>I'm
>>already aging. <g>
>
>
> Good news! I thought you were older.
>
> Wes

Sheesh. I'm a lot older than I was before I got into arguments with the
paleos here. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:32 am
From: "Steve W."

Mark Rand wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:40:36 -0500, "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Which is why I would like to see ALL health insurance programs
>> eliminated. Go to paying cash for ALL services. Would level the field
>> REALLY quick.
>> I don't think that the Feds have ANY legal reason to get involved. I
>> cannot find anything in the Constitution that says the government is a
>> health care provider??
>
> So what! There's nothing in your constitution mentioning automobiles,

Developed in the PRIVATE sector. Nothing to do with the Constitution.

> antibiotics

Developed in the PRIVATE sector. Nothing to do with the Constitution.

or atomic bombs either.

I guess that pesky clause in there about "provide for the common
defense" doesn't apply.

Don't try to use your constitution as an
> excuse to remain 70 years behind the rest of the civilized world unless you do
> it consistently.
>
>
> Mark Rand
> RTFM

--
Steve W.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:54 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Wes" <clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:E3pXm.220070$mn3.72613@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Do you really think changing masters given the forces of economics will
>>> have a
>>> dramatically different result?
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>Nope. Not in terms of rationing care. We've been doing it for 30 years or
>>more -- or the insurance companies have.
>>
>>And that's my point. We do it now. We have to do it now. If costs keep
>>going
>>up (which is in the insurance companies' interest, BTW), we'll have to do
>>more of it in the future.
>
> We ration everything. The limiting factor on you not backing up to
> bestbuy or whatever
> store and filling your vehical with goods is your ablity to pay for it.
>
> Somehow, there seems to be this idea that being able to pay for what you
> get isn't
> supposed to apply when it comes to healthcare.

Yeah, that's true. It's an ethical problem that's been unfolding for a
half-century. We're getting down to brass tacks now, and the issue is going
to be an important one in the years ahead. We have more medical technology
than we can afford.

>
> The one change that I'd have really liked to see would be to have access
> to the same menu
> of plans that government employees have. We would be still dealing with
> an insurance
> company but depending on how much we want to devote to coverage, our level
> of care would
> follow our willingness to pay for it. We also could change insurance
> companies once a
> year if we picked a poor choice.

Well, it isn't going to happen as long as insurance companies have more
lobbying power than God.

>
> I fear we are working towards no choice at all.
>
> Wes

Insurance choices will be limited. That's inevitable. But it's not
inevitable that we'll be limited in *medical* choices. I don't see any
likelihood of a plan in the US, or in most other civilized countries, in
which you can't pay for extras on your own.

--
Ed Huntress

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 10:10 am
From: F. George McDuffee

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:39:29 -0600, "William Wixon"
<wwixon@frontiernet.net> wrote:
<snip>
>they were
>also saying if there was a virulent outbreak of flu there wouldn't be enough
>respirators in the united states for everyone and some people are gonna die
>because there just won't be enough respirators. who gets to decide who's
>gonna get the available respirators? there won't be any obama "death
>panels", yet, so who's going to decide? insurance companies?
<snip>
By long tradition this will depend on two critical social
factors: (1) The patient's net [cash] worth, and (2) The
patient's credit rating.

Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 10:12 am
From: F. George McDuffee

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:53:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:

>>> Nope. Not in terms of rationing care. We've been doing it for 30 years or
>>> more -- or the insurance companies have.
This fall into the category "any old stick is good enough to beat
a dog with."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Good photo hosting site?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/c2e8f5a5de474a49?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 8:49 am
From: "Bob La Londe"

"Robert Roland" <fake@ddress.no> wrote in message
news:7k4si558dhvihq60q7s8q9i5kjn257ac3m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:18:27 -0800, Gunner Asch
> <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>http://picasa.google.com/
>>
>>The free photo handling program that you download is rather good, is
>>quite versitile and they give you literally gigabytes of storage space.
>
> Only one gig. If you want more, you must pay:

Yeah, but a gig is a lot. Even if you upload full size pictures at 400-500K
that's well over 2000 pictures. I worried about storage space when I setup
my web forums and allowed built in picture hosting until I did the math.
The gallery doesn't even get used anymore. Users just upload and plug their
photos right into the forums.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The failings of the lauded "peer review" Re: And Another Wingnut Turns
in His Balls -> was: Noted Climatologist Sarah Palin Speaks
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/eec65e65482c1bb5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:03 am
From: Aratzio

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:34:06 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
writing:

>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:37:12 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Really, you think that is what it says? Seriously? 22 different
>>>>studies are circular? Peer review didn't catch that?
>>>
>>>Not when the peers are doing the same thing for the same paycheck.
>
>
>> IOW You have no facts, reasoning or logic.
>
>Here's some.
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#

What you have is another "claim" unsupported by anything other than
one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.

That again is n9ot "evidence". Care to try again where you supply the
coutervailingt evidence that the current scientific models are in some
way inaccurate or will in themselves lead to any sort of damage to the
biosphere:

Your <evidence goes here>

(He won't he does not have any)

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:11 am
From: Aratzio

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:35:45 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
writing:

>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
> The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should
>know.
>By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

"I found one person who agrees with me, so I must be right!!!!"

Ignore for the fact that it would require an active conspiracy of
literally millions of individuals to actually pull off what your
"author" claims, it is just one person. The unsupported claims of a
single person does not make a conspiracy real.

If humans are a cause of global warming, then we can do something to
slow or halt the process. If we are not, moving to renewable resources
and banking the non-renewable resources is just good business.

Most of the windnuts just ignore the national security aspects of
carbon fuel importation and how that places us at the mercy of the oil
producing countries of the world. If we are independant of them, we
don't need to be in places like Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:12 am
From: Aratzio

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:37:50 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
writing:

>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:47:14 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>WHEEE, when challenged, lie.
>>
>> Wingers get caught every time, right?
>
>Yes. It seems you do.

"I know you are but what am I?"

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:25 am
From: Winston_Smith

Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:

>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

>Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer
>is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009,
>wrote that he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap" out of me at a
>scientific meeting. He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global
>Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost
>primary warming data.

<http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>
The Dog Ate Global Warming
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data
have been fiddled?
By Patrick J. Michaels

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface
temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a
historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this
U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate
deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify
the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some
discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened,
and they aren't talking much. And what little they are saying makes no
sense.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy,
scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia
established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's
first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known in the
trade as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and
Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It
was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human
influence on global climate."

Putting together such a record isn't at all easy. Weather stations
weren't really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones
were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow
into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records.
Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature.
Further, as documented by the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke
Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as
in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high
temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that
are required to verify models of global warming aren't the original
records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren't specific about what
was done to which station in order to produce their record, which,
according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th
century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered
where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early
2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow
scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or
so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,
when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific
thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find
something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so
well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster
told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw
data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a
Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having
been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his
analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he
couldn't have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So his
colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph,
asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all,
saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data
between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog
readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only
a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and
written in very vague language.

It's worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers
demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that
the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we
could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may
have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU
data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to
warming (while others have found otherwise).

Enter the dog that ate global warming.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at
the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones.
Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into
existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record
should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s
meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some
sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity
issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the
value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about "data storage" is balderdash. They got the records
from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original
data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the
mid-1980s. I had all of the world's surface barometric pressure data
on one such tape in 1979.

If we are to believe Jones's note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted
the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After
all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the
question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or
lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely
that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from
its docket this fall - whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection
Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide
emissions. Unlike a law, which can't be challenged on a scientific
basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there's no science.
U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

— Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at
the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming
Science They Don't Want You to Know.

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:28 am
From: Winston_Smith

Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:35:45 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
>writing:
>
>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>>How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
>> The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should
>>know.
>>By PATRICK J. MICHAELS
>
>"I found one person who agrees with me, so I must be right!!!!"

Demonstrate that even one thing he wrote is wrong.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:33 am
From: "HH&C"

On Dec 20, 11:34 am, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:37:12 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
> >>Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Really, you think that is what it says? Seriously? 22 different
> >>>studies are circular? Peer review didn't catch that?
>
> >>Not when the peers are doing the same thing for the same paycheck.
> > IOW You have no facts, reasoning or logic.
>
> Here's some.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603...
> How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
> The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should
> know.
> By PATRICK J. MICHAELS
>
> Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the
> now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia
> Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating
> some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order
> to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and
> requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of
> potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).
>
> But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate
> scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have
> consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection
> Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a
> "pollutant."
>
> The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific
> literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on
> in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted).
> When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is
> done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers
> assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample
> of the state of climate science.
>
> That can no longer be the case. The alliance of scientists at East
> Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric
> Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias it.
>
> A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers
> that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the
> University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. One of the papers,
> published in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), was a meta-analysis of
> dozens of "paleoclimate" studies that extended back 1,000 years. They
> concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be
> considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the
> last millennium.
>
> In fact, that period, known as the "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP), was
> generally considered warmer than the 20th century in climate textbooks
> and climate compendia, including those in the 1990s from the IPCC.
>
> Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous "hockey stick" article in
> Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of
> multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out
> both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent "Little Ice Age" (a
> cold period from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century),
> leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note.
>
> Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn't like a paper I published in
> Climate Research in 2002. It said human activity was warming surface
> temperatures, and that this was consistent with the mathematical form
> (but not the size) of projections from computer models. Why? The
> magnitude of the warming in CRU's own data was not as great as in the
> models, so therefore the models merely were a bit enthusiastic about
> the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>
> Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research
> out of business. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the
> climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in,
> this journal," he wrote in one of the emails. "We would also need to
> consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who
> currently sit on the editorial board."
>
> After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and
> reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People
> who didn't toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones's line began to
> experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.
>
> This happened to me and to the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer,
> who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest.
> Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good
> work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has
> disappeared from the scientific scene.
>
> GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that
> one of the editors was "in the skeptics camp." He emailed Michael Mann
> to say that "if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go
> through official . . . channels to get him ousted."
>
> Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that "It's one thing to
> lose 'Climate Research.' We can't afford to lose GRL." In this
> context, "losing" obviously means the publication of anything that
> they did not approve of on global warming.
>
> Soon the suspect editor, Yale's James Saiers, was gone. Mr. Mann wrote
> to the CRU's Phil Jones that "the GRL leak may have been plugged up
> now w/ new editorial leadership there."
>
> It didn't stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National
> Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was
> now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that
> was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19,
> 2009, that "If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data
> available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I
> will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."
>
> Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer
> is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009,
> wrote that he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap" out of me at a
> scientific meeting. He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global
> Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost
> primary warming data.
>
> The result of all this is that our refereed literature has been
> inestimably damaged, and reputations have been trashed. Mr. Wigley
> repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to "skeptics" (or even
> nonskeptics like me), because they didn't publish enough in the
> peer-reviewed literature—even as he and his friends sought to make it
> difficult or impossible to do so.
>
> Ironically, with the release of the Climategate emails, the Climatic
> Research Unit, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley have
> dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions. The EPA
> claimed to rely solely upon compendia of the refereed literature such
> as the IPCC reports, in order to make its finding of endangerment from
> carbon dioxide. Now that we know that literature was biased by the
> heavy-handed tactics of the East Anglia mob, the EPA has lost the
> basis for its finding.
>
> Mr. Michaels, formerly professor of environmental sciences at the
> University of Virginia (1980-2007), is a senior fellow at the Cato
> Institute.

I recall that Bush was blamed for the suppression of scientific
opinion.

Well now, it would appear that AGW scientific opinon has graduated to
a belief sysem, i.e., a religion and a church.

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:48 am
From: Winston_Smith

Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> >

>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>
>What you have is another "claim" unsupported by anything other than
>one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.

One person with your lauded peer reviewed credentials and published in
your lauded peer reviewed journals. And he is backed up by a great
many people with similar credentials as cited in the article you so
easily dismiss.

>Your <evidence goes here>
>(He won't he does not have any)

Demonstrate that even one thing he wrote is wrong.
Your <evidence goes here>

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:50 am
From: "HH&C"

On Dec 20, 12:48 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> >
> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603...
>
> >What you have is another "claim" unsupported by anything other than
> >one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.
>
> One person with your lauded peer reviewed credentials and published in
> your lauded peer reviewed journals. And he is backed up by a great
> many people with similar credentials as cited in the article you so
> easily dismiss.
>
> >Your <evidence goes here>
> >(He won't he does not have any)
>
> Demonstrate that even one thing he wrote is wrong.
> Your <evidence goes here>

i.e., a religion.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 10:03 am
From: "HH&C"

On Dec 20, 12:25 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603...
> >How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
> >Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer
> >is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009,
> >wrote that he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap" out of me at a
> >scientific meeting. He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global
> >Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost
> >primary warming data.
>
> <http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3Zm...>
> The Dog Ate Global Warming
> Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data
> have been fiddled?
> By Patrick J. Michaels
>
> Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface
> temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
> no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a
> historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this
> U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate
> deal in Copenhagen in December.
>
> Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify
> the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
>
> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some
> discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened,
> and they aren't talking much. And what little they are saying makes no
> sense.
>
> In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy,
> scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia
> established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's
> first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known in the
> trade as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and
> Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the
> U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It
> was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human
> influence on global climate."
>
> Putting together such a record isn't at all easy. Weather stations
> weren't really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones
> were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow
> into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records.
> Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature.
> Further, as documented by the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke
> Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as
> in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high
> temperatures are bound to be recorded.
>
> So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that
> are required to verify models of global warming aren't the original
> records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren't specific about what
> was done to which station in order to produce their record, which,
> according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th
> century.
>
> Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered
> where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early
> 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow
> scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or
> so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,
> when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
>
> Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific
> thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find
> something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so
> well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
>
> Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster
> told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw
> data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a
> Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having
> been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his
> analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he
> couldn't have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So his
> colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph,
> asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
>
> Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all,
> saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data
> between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog
> readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only
> a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and
> written in very vague language.
>
> It's worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers
> demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that
> the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we
> could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may
> have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU
> data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to
> warming (while others have found otherwise).
>
> Enter the dog that ate global warming.
>
> Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at
> the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones.
> Jones responded:
>
> Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into
> existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
> stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record
> should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s
> meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some
> sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity
> issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the
> value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
>
> The statement about "data storage" is balderdash. They got the records
> from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original
> data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the
> mid-1980s. I had all of the world's surface barometric pressure data
> on one such tape in 1979.
>
> If we are to believe Jones's note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted
> the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
> ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After
> all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the
> question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or
> lost, and why?
>
> All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely
> that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from
> its docket this fall - whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection
> Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide
> emissions. Unlike a law, which can't be challenged on a scientific
> basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there's no science.
> U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.
>
> — Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at
> the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming
> Science They Don't Want You to Know.

Much of what I have previously said about normalizing observational
data, and the "metromex" urban heat island influencing gridded climate
fields is contained above. I watched as satellite data was processed
and made available in the early to mid 80's, and it left a lot to be
desired.

But you guys doubted me.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus -- The East Anglia emails
are just the tip of the iceberg. I should know
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/87c09d00cb8a4132?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:13 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <4b2d608e$0$4984$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Joseph Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:joegwinn-39C6AB.16570719122009@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <4b2d0fb2$0$31276$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> > "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Joseph Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:joegwinn-7B8818.11375219122009@news.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <4b2cf6af$0$4981$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> >> > "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Buerste" <buerste@wowway.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:OxZWm.51885$ZF3.19111@newsfe13.iad...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44hohrkapv3vai7ttqk@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
> >> >> >> <joegwinn@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The
> >> >> >>>last
> >> >> >>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling
> >> >> >>>legal
> >> >> >>>action against the EPA.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487043983045745982304260372
> >> >> 44.
> >> >> html>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18
> >> >> >>>December
> >> >> >>>print issue.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Excellent article, Joe.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the
> >> >> > WSJ.
> >> >
> >> > No Tom, they do read, but then only fume. But the WSJ is not expecting
> >> > to convince the people at Copenhagen.
> >>
> >> The WSJ is not trying to "convince" anyone with their opinion pieces and
> >> op-eds. Their purpose is to give voice to various opinions and to provoke
> >> thought. That is, good ones are. The WSJ often just tries to be
> >> provocative
> >> in those pages. That's their legacy from being regarded as a paper too
> >> dull
> >> for mass audiences. You can trace it back to the 1950s, if you've worked
> >> in
> >> journalism.
> >
> > Umm. The WST is the largest circulation paper in the country:
> > <http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004030296>
>
> In 1941, the WSJ's circulation was 50,000. At that time, the NYT's
> circulation was 500,000. Both had been around since the mid-to-late 19th
> century.
>
> As I said, they made changes in the WSJ in the '50s to boost general
> circulation, including souping up the editorial pages. They added other
> sections to appeal to the non-financial audience. By 1967, circulation was
> up to 1.1 million.

But if they're so dull, how come they're so rich? WSJ - ~2 million
subscribers; USA Today - ~1.9 million, and NYT - ~0.9 million.

> >> >> That's not the WSJ. That's an op-ed written by a guy who claims to
> >> >> have
> >> >> been
> >> >> the "state climatologist" of Virginia, but of whom Virginia says
> >> >> there's
> >> >> no
> >> >> such thing. The Global Climate Coalition, a carbon-producing industry
> >> >> front
> >> >> group, pulled back from supporting his claims because their internal
> >> >> review
> >> >> said that the data doesn't support what he said. That review was
> >> >> obtained
> >> >> through a court order. In one paper he co-authored, he "proved" that
> >> >> global
> >> >> warming wasn't happening by mixing up degrees with radians. <g>
> >> >>
> >> >> Before you get too excited, you might want to know more about Pat
> >> >> Michaels.
> >> >> He's a long-time skeptic, and apparently an honest one, but he's also
> >> >> a
> >> >> lonely voice. He actually agrees with the projections on human-induced
> >> >> global warming but he says it will be at the lowest end of the
> >> >> estimates.
> >> >> I
> >> >> checked his claim about the editorial board and it's apparently
> >> >> misleading;
> >> >> I have more checking to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway, you might want to know who's behind him. Here's a partial list
> >> >> of
> >> >> the people funding his work, either directly for the "research" or by
> >> >> paying
> >> >> him to speak:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
> >> >> The Western Fuels Association
> >> >> North Carolina Coal Institute
> >> >> Pacific Research Institute (an industry front)
> >> >> Kentucky Coal Operators Association
> >> >> AMAX Energy Corporation
> >> >> Consolidation Coal Corporation
> >> >> Cincinnati Gas and Electric
> >> >> The National Aerosol Association
> >> >> Massie Coal Corporation
> >> >> Indiana Coal Mining Institute
> >> >> Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
> >> >> Virginia Petroleum Council
> >> >> Alabama Electric Power Cooperative
> >> >> World Coal Conference
> >> >> American Mining Congress
> >> >>
> >> >> And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
> >> >>
> >> >> The point is, Michaels is deeply dependent upon industry funding to
> >> >> support him. That doesn't automatically mean that he's a shill, but if he
> >> >> isn't, it's smart to be wary about the things he says.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, you know all about this stuff and have the science down
> >> >> pat, so you know who's right and who's not. d8-)
> >> >
> >> > You forgot to mention that many (most?) of the studies Michaels
> >> > mentioned were funded by the American Petroleum Institute as well.
> >> > This was acknowledged in the articles, and is no secret.
> >>
> >> It's hardly a secret. I was suggesting that the entire force behind Michaels
> >> is so uniform in its financial interest that you should be skeptical about
> >> what he writes. That's the flip side of the skeptics' argument about the
> >> funding for academic research that they claim leads to uniformity on the
> >> global warming issue. It cuts both ways.
> >
> > It's also well known that Al Gore stands to make lots of money on Global
> > Warming. There has been lots of ink spilled decrying this, but I don't
> > buy the theory that Al is doing it only for the money. More likely, Al
> > *believes*, and is placing his bets accordingly.
>
> The point I'm making is that this is such a political and financial issue
> that you can't point to any individual article and claim that it means
> anything substantial. We don't have any way to evaluate them. We don't
> understand the science. All you can do is decide whose opinions you like,
> either because they fit your political views or they support your financial
> interests.
>
> Or, you can do the only rational thing, and evaluate it in terms of how
> science usually works. For the most part, when majorities of real scientists
> who are involved in the specialty at hand (not the doctors of philosophy and
> engineers who sign onto the skeptic's "petitions") agree on a point, the
> chances are they're right. Statistically. Over time.
>
> As for the contrarians who break new ground, for every one of those there
> are many, many more who are wrong and who sink without a trace. We never
> hear about them so they disappear into history.

All true enough. What we civilians can do is to ensure that the debate
remains open and fair, and let the partisans duke it out. The problem
is that one side was caught with their thumb on the scale.

> If this weren't so politically and economically charged, most of the
> contrarians would have sunk into oblivion long ago. What keeps them afloat
> is the enormous financial interest, particularly from the fossil-fuel
> industries, that lavishes money upon them and which provides them with
> publishing opportunities.

All important questions have serious money behind all sides. So, one
makes sure that the Queensbury Rules are followed, to the extent
possible, so no one side can gain unfair advantage, and lets nature take
its course. It's messy to be sure, but no better way has ever been
found.

> None of this is conclusive one way or the other. But if you know the history
> of science, it's clear where the odds lie.

The history is that the fewer constraints on the debate, the faster it
comes to a conclusion.

> >> > However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
> >> > close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument.
> >>
> >> No it's not. It's being aware of what forces are informing a
> >> controversial
> >> opinion. You have no way of judging Michaels' science, do you? Neither
> >> does
> >> 99.99% of the world's population. So you have to look behind his words,
> >> to
> >> see if you can detect a biasing influence that should cause you to be
> >> cautious. I made it quite clear that being funded by financial interests
> >> who
> >> have a stake in debunking AGW does not necessarily make one a shill. It
> >> does
> >> make one suspect, however. There is no reason to believe that he's a
> >> reliable witness, given the stake he has in being antagonistic to AGW.
> >
> > When one attacks the person, not the theory, it *is* ad hominem, by
> > definition.
>
> It's a useless definition in this case. We evaluate the credibility of
> advocates all the time. We have no choice in cases like this, where neither
> you, me, nor most other people can evaluate the science they're talking
> about.

I'm sorry but that is simply wrong:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

> Ad hominem is a logical tool for judging inappropriate use of personal
> attacks. This isn't personal attacks; it's looking into the background of a
> speaker or writer to judge how likely they are to be accurate or to be
> telling the truth. If you automatically dismiss such evaluations, you're a
> sucker for every con man who comes down the pike.

If they were running for public office, where their character is very
much the question, then I would agree.

But they are not running for office, they are making scientific claims,
and we can test the truth or falsity of such claims regardless of the
speakers' character or lack thereof.

> > Saying that their funding is evil so their conclusions must be incorrect
> > is also a non sequitur.
>
> What is this, Latin Appreciation Day? <g> Don't do the Aristotelian schtick,
> Joe, when the questions are whether this guy is telling it straight, whether
> he knows what he's talking about, and whether he's in somebody's pocket.

The form of your argument is that so-and-so is a SOB so we should not
believe him. This is the classic ad hominem argument.

The reason to reject ad hominem arguments is because they are non
sequiturs - the truth or falsity of the statement has nothing to do with
the speaker being a SOB, and the statement can be false even if the
speaker is nice.

Another way to think this out is to note that the ad hominem approach
necessarily implies that evil people cannot be right, and by extension
cannot be competent. But one fears the combination of evil intent and
competence the most, and can think of many examples from history.

> > And almost everybody is funded by something or someone.
>
> Yeah. So be skeptical about everybody, then.

Well, yes. They are all human, all too human. And your point?

> >> > It is also self
> >> > defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
> >> > all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.
> >>
> >> If you believe that, you can believe anything.
> >
> > Heh. Ad hominem, now directed closer to home. Is there a pattern here?
>
> Yes. The pattern is that you're digging up some Latin terms for logic to
> hide behind, in an attempt to dodge some things that are simple and obvious.
> d8-)

I scarcely think that using the standard names for certain forms of
fallacious argument is hiding behind Latin terms. By that theory, most
of medicine and science would be off limits, as a large part of their
vocabulary is derived from Greek and Latin.

> >> Your only guidance would be
> >> your personal biases and self-interest. Come to think of it, that seems to
> >> be the guiding interest of most of the skeptics, eh? And, with a caveat,
> >> it's also true of many of the supporters. Neither group, on the whole,
> >> understands the science.

This basically makes the skeptics' case. One side asserts that they
know the Truth, while the other side says that the verdict is Not Proven.

> > Given that we are all biased this way or that, or rather that everybody
> > is biased except me and thee, the only durable solution has been to get
> > all the theories and analyses and arguments out on the table and give
> > them all The Treatment. What survives scathing review by opponents is
> > what the next generation of theories will be made from, the rest having
> > been refuted and discarded.
>
> The opponents may be assholes. How will you know? Will you be able to
> evaluate the science?

By letting them fight it out.

> > The story of Newton and the achromatic lens is instructive. Newton
> > convinced himself that achromatic lenses were impossible, and stopped
> > progress for a generation Newton was by far the most respected
> > scientist of his age, so he could do this with a word. I also recall
> > reading that he destroyed the career of at least one person who
> > disagreed with him, but I don't have the cite at hand yet. But Newton
> > was wrong, as we now know. For some of the history see
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens>.
>
> I don't think Pat Michaels is another Newton. d8-)

True enough, but the parallel would be that Michaels would be one of the
doubters (Newton deniers?).

> >> > And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
> >> > that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to those
> >> > entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
> >> > disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.
> >>
> >> So you recognize that the knife cuts both ways. Since that's true, and since
> >> all we have to go on is the matter of which experts we believe, what's your
> >> guidance for believing what clearly is a minority view among expert
> >> climatologists?
> >
> > I believe in flat-wire brushes wielded in gladiatorial combat.
>
> I'd prefer a .45.

Too quick; reduces entertainment value. Nor are firearms very good
cleaning implements.

> > But my motives are suspect - I'm really trying to increase sales in the
> > dantean northern brush factory.
> >
> >
> >> Don't claim I'm supporting either side. I do not understand enough of the
> >> science to have an opinion. What *I* have to go on is the historical
> >> success
> >> of majority views among scientists. That's not enough to form a "belief."
> >> It is enough to place one's bets on red or black, if the wheel is being spun
> >> and you have to make a choice. If you do it enough times you'll come out
> >> ahead.
> >
> > The crime of Climategate is not that they believed or that they placed
> > their bets accordingly, it's that they tried and to a great extent
> > succeeded in corrupting the process by which science finds the truth,
> > and that they destroyed the careers of those who believed otherwise.
>
> I think the truth is more likely to be what the AP said:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400
>
> And what US News said:
>
> http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/12/12/climate-gate-beyond-the-emba
> rrassment.html
>
> And what The Australian said:
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/stolen-emails-reflect-the-heat-in-debate-
> not-deception/story-e6frg6xf-1225810002218
>
> And what The Examiner said:
>
> http://www.examiner.com/x-1300-Detroit-National-Politics-Examiner~y2009m12d14-
> Climategate-is-much-ado-about-nothing
>
> And what ScienceNews said:
>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50707/title/Climate-gate_Beyond_the
> _embarrassment
>
> And what the Times of London said:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article
> 6948008.ece
>
> What they said is that it's a lousy mess, but it doesn't appear to throw the
> global warming evidence into question.
>
> When the smoke clears, that's where we're likely to land. Or some people
> will. Where the politics will land is an open questions.

They all say that the emails did not directly undermine the science,
which is true. But what the emails revealed was political, not
technical, so the news articles talking about the science alone are
misdirected, are missing the central issue. In short, a red herring.

> >> > I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
> >> > at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
> >> > scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few
> >> > years, if history is any guide.
> >>
> >> Maybe. I certainly hope so.
> >
> > Now that CRU's ability to control events is ended, nature should take
> > its course.
>
> We'll see.

Yes. A useful parallel is Microsoft after the antitrust case. While in
one sense Microsoft won the case, their ability to pull the tricks amply
demonstrated in evidence was ended -- Mother is Watching.

> >> > A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't understand
> >> > science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
> >> > thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
> >> > these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
> >> >
> >> > Joe Gwinn
> >>
> >> I have no such belief in the consequence. Politicians are in it for the
> >> politics. If they get their funding from the coal industry and if their
> >> constituents have been led by the nose to become skeptics, they'll oppose
> >> the science. It's not going to be unequivocal, or even unarguable, until
> >> most of us are dead. Well, until I'm dead, anyway. d8-)
> >
> > I think the key is that politicians representing states and districts
> > where the backbone of the local economy is heavy industry of some kind
> > now have the ammunition to slow or stop the rush to carbon restriction.
>
> Right. That's what they're looking for: ammunition, not the truth. The truth
> could be very inconvenient, as they say, when your income depends upon your
> not "understanding" it.

It's true that what they seek is ammunition, to stop what they (and
their constituents) perceive as a rush to judgement that will cripple
their economy. Voters can be *so* inflexible and short-term oriented.

More generally, nothing of this impact will get through Congress unless
the great majority of voters believe in the absolute necessity, and this
has not yet happened. The surveys I've seen recently show that belief
in global warming is in fact slowly waning, which increases the pressure
on the politicians.

<http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming>

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-
exaggerated.aspx>

Nor does the reluctance of China (the largest CO2 emitter) and India
(working on it) to agree to meaningful restrictions help. In round
numbers, the combined populations of China and India is 2.5 billion.
The US is a distant third at 0.3 billion, call it one tenth as large.
The EU is about the same size as the US. What China and India do will
simply swamp what the US and EU do. This is a big issue at Copenhagen,
and was an issue at Kyoto ten years before.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population>

> > Before Climategate, it was a close thing, so it takes only a few votes
> > changing to opposition to stop all motion.
>
> Yup. We can bugger up anything if the financial incentive is strong enough.
> Who cares what the truth is, anyway?

Well, this assumes that you know the Truth, despite earlier having
admitted that none of us can really know, or are experts in the relevant
science. A faith-based belief?

Joe Gwinn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: See those photos of Gunner?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ccfc6d790eee4d34?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 10:23 am
From: "Steve B"

> Ayup...San Berdo county I think...think is slightly smaller than Kern
> Co. where I live.
>

San Berdoo is biggest, Nye county, NV second. IIRC, Nye county has about
44,000 as of July 08. Mostly government property out there. Berdoo just
over two million.

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT range report that very few readers will find of interest
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/72ac3a999eeebfa7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:47 am
From: Don Foreman

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:28:06 -0800, Gunner Asch
<gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>Though Im curious..anyone know any law enforcement agencies who issue
>.25s or .380s to street cops as their primary arm? And why not?

PPK stands for Polizeipistole Kriminalmodell (Police Pistol Detective
Model), carried by many plain-clothes policemen in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_PP
It was made in .32ACP and .380ACP or 9mm Kurz.

Perhaps these were not "street cops". I am not one either.
>
>And which branch of the US military does the same?

None. When I was a soldier my sidearm was the M1911A1 in .45ACP. I am
not a soldier now.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:58 am
From: Don Foreman

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:46:19 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:28:06 -0800, Gunner Asch
><gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Though Im curious..anyone know any law enforcement agencies who issue
>>.25s or .380s to street cops as their primary arm? And why not?
>>
>>And which branch of the US military does the same?
>>
>>Ill be waiting with interest.
>
>
>James Bond, whose exploits are every bit as real as yours, favors a
>.25. But certainly there are other experts whose opinions we should
>seek out. Anybody have an email address for Deputy Dawg or Elmer Fudd?
>
>Wayne

In early novels James Bond favored the Walther PPK which was made in
.32ACP and .380ACP or 9mm Kurz.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: My Powermaticdrill press with VFD
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/3a260d8a5b515728?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:49 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <nnvri5llkmc0g11lsvksmtimpdm5e7sooh@4ax.com>,
Gunner Asch <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:34:47 -0500, GeoLane at PTD dot NET <GeoLane at
> PTD dot NET> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:27:15 -0800, Gunner Asch
> ><gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> >>As for me...whenever I use a VFD...it will have a ramp up and a ramp
> >>down time..and the ramp down time will be just about as fast as I can
> >>get it.
> >
> >I can set the VFD I use for my Bridgeport to stop in 1 second. Would
> >it be hard on the VFD to come to a quick stop like that? Sould you
> >have an external add-on resistor if you're going to be doing that? My
> >VFD is rated at 3 HP and the motor is 2 HP.
> >
> >RWL
>
>
> It really SHOULD have an external resistor. Its a slush pond that all
> the nasty stuff gets sent to when you slam on the brakes. And if you
> brake to a stop a lot..it really needs to be what the manual calls for,
> given some margin for farting around with surplus goodies.
>
> If you can find something appropriate..you really should install it.
> The BP spindle is a fairly massive group of steel chunks and needs a
> braking resistor to stop it quickly.
>
> A good wirewound works pretty well, and is adjustable...and are often
> damned cheap.

Yes. However, if you use a wirewound resistor not intended as a braking
resistor, there are a few things to ensure:

1. If the open-tube vitrified type (which is what adjustable units
usually are), the resistor must be mounted in a grounded metal enclosure
such that no fire will result should the resistor achieve red heat.
This can happen, and will not damage an open-tube vitrified wirewound
resistor if it doesn't happen too often. Be sure to use heater wire to
connect to the resistor. Unless the resistor is too large for such
overheating to occur.

2. The resistor mounting enclosure must prevent accidental contact with
the terminals, as their normal voltage is around 350 volts DC.

3. Entry of and shorting by metal chips must be prevented. Mounting up
high helps a lot.

4. The resistor must be physically large enough to absorb the stored
energy of all that rotating metal without burnout, as no real heat
dissipation can occur over the one-second stopping time. The energy
from stopping is stored in the resistor as heat, which is only later and
slowly transferred to the atmosphere.

For metalworkers, none of this is hard to do, but I wanted to be sure
that the issues are understood. The easiest option is probably a large
aluminum-clad boltdown power resistor. These are available on the
surplus market for small dollars, as are the big open-tube vitrified
units.

Joe Gwinn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's your favorite "stuck bolt" removal process?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/290bd005950e57ff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 9:51 am
From: Bob Engelhardt

Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Ronsonol lighter fluid melts candle wax. ...

Lighter fluid is naphtha is benzine. Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Undercover stings expose 'gun show loophole'
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/cd58a895b0fcb68f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 10:00 am
From: "RD (The Sandman)"

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in news:hggvif
$s17$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> Works, for me.
>

But not for me.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Time to get tougher
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/857dcab3153330a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 10:03 am
From: Deucalion

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:28:17 -0800, Gunner Asch
<gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:12:43 -0600, "Lib Loo" <heezback@crazymother.kom>
>wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Im less than 5 minutes away from a 1000 yrd range..and he is pissing and
>>>>moaning? Blink blink...
>>>>
>>>>Doesnt he have any clue that I live smack in the middle of the fucking
>>>>desert?
>>>>
>>>>Hey Parakeet...do a google map again of my place..and then zoom OUT a
>>>>cou ple notchs.
>>>>
>>>>It will make you look far far far less stupid when you post.
>>>>
>>>>Gunner
>>>
>>> Poor little gunner. You silly little boy who ran and hid from his own
>>> challenge. One more time for the history impaired. BTW, you live in
>>> a trailer park gunner. You don't have a job. You wouldn't be alive
>>> except for screwing the doctors and hospital out of their money. Plus,
>>> you issue challenges to show what a man you are and then you piss your
>>> pants and hide like a little girl.
>>>
>
>ROFLMAO....then you didnt look at my place on the Google Map as you
>claimed to have done. Else you wouldnt be lying about living in a
>trailer park. And you are butt ignorant else you would have known that
>I was working for the past 2 weeks, hence my absence from this
>newsgroup.
>
>My address again is 326 Olive Ave, Taft, California, 93268.
>If you cant make it there, I can meet you in Ontario, Pomona, or just
>about any place in So. California. Simply give me an address where you
>live and Ill see which place is closer to you.

You issued the challenge. You get to do the traveling. You knew that
when you issued the "name the time and place" threat. You are a paper
tiger. Hush up little girl. No one believes your silly threats
anymore.

You aren't even enough of a man to be the father of your son.

>
>>> PS. Why do you have to take a psychological test every two years to
>>> get your CCW renewed? Do you have some mental issues that they are
>>> worried about? They shouldn't worry. You are too much of a little
>>> girl to do anything.
>
>Again another lie on your part. No psy testing needed for renewal. But
>such a claim on your part is hardly unexpected.

Actually, psychological testing can be required in California if the
issuer thinks it's needed. You have bragged many times about how you
must be sane since you have to take the test every two years.

>
>Its is however very telling that you are not allowed to have a CCW, or
>can legally carry a firearm upon your person.

You do have a cite for that lie don't you?

>
>Its generally a matter of a past criminal record of yours, or a mental
>health issue you are suffering from that prevents you from obtaining a
>CCW.
>
>Pity..which leaves you very very little room to be a critic judging me.

You are a useless eater who lives in a trailer park (yes I have
looked) at your mobile home. You don't pay your bills. You don't pay
your taxes. I have all kinds of room for judging you.

>
>Laugh, laugh, laugh laughlaughlaughlaugh!!

<shrug> If being a useless eater makes you happy, then I'm happy for
you. Just man up and admit what you are.

>
>Gunner
>
>
>"First Law of Leftist Debate
>The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
>that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
>more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
>losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
>homophobe approaches infinity.
>
>This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
>race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
>the subject." Grey Ghost

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chuck For Mill
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/8a386308cf04daaa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 10:06 am
From: "Bob La Londe"

Ok, I've been playing with ,y Taig mini mill for a while now and I have some
idea of its limitations. I'm not quite ready to buy a lathe yet, but I'm
working on it. In the mean time I thought I might be able to make some
small parts if I could find a lathe style chuck to fit my mill.

It uses ER-16 collets so I was thinking, "just find a chuck with a 3/8
shaft, and use my 3/8 collet" There are a number of small inexpensive
chucks out there, but they all have a tapered shaft. At least all the ones
I can find.

For example
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=4486

If I had a lathe I could turn that shaft down to fit one of my collets, but
I'm not sure how to do that with my mill.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Sunday, December 20, 2009

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts