h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You do need to read and comprehend what has been posted and not assume something has been said which is not there.

For example I did not say how the sun cooks but just that it does.

As for mobile phones most of the science about them has been discreetly watered gown.

For example the German scientists did some tests in the early days, and found that prolonged use warmed the side of the head and ear.

Blood samples taken from the ear lobe, were found to be congealed.

Now that does not sound to me like a nothing problem, even if it does to you, and your associates.

James

>> You do need to read and comprehend what has been posted and not assume something has been said which is not there.

>>For example I did not say how the sun cooks but just that it does.

One of the many things you have still not managed to grasp is the fact that I am perfectly able to understand semantics, and recognise disingenuity when I see it.

You were clearly operating under the misapprehension that the Sun warms the oceans directly, like a microwave oven heats food by coupling with the water content of food.

Now that you (apparently) have learned how GW works, rather than admitting to having ignorance corrected, you attempt to wriggle out of the original error. Pride is a sin, as I am sure you are aware.

>>As for mobile phones most of the science about them has been discreetly watered gown.

And you "know" this because...? The science was never conclusive, only the media hype claimed it was, but intelligent people read past the headlines.

>> For example the German scientists did some tests in the early days, and found that prolonged use warmed the side of the head and ear.

"The German scientists"? Is there only one team of scientists in Germany? As I already said, and as an intelligent person should realise, the preliminary results were not conclusive. Unless you know better, and can provide a link?

>> Blood samples taken from the ear lobe, were found to be congealed.

If the blood had congealed in the earlobe, it could not be extracted with a needle, and the earlobe itself would rapidly succumb to symptoms akin to frostbite (ie, go black, die and drop off).

>> Now that does not sound to me like a nothing problem, even if it does to you, and your associates.

If it was true (I don't see a link?), then earlobes rotting and falling off would indeed be a problem.

The most current research, based on a study of almost 60,000 cases, found that either mobiles are safe, or the risk is so small as to be undetectable over a period of ten years in a statistically-significant population. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djp415v1

By the way, I don't have "associates". I have colleagues, and I have friends, and a number of people who fall into both categories. "Associates" is a semantically-loaded term, and your usage is wholly disingenuous (as if I should be surprised at that).

So why does it come highly recommended that children are encouraged not to have prolonged use of the mobile phone?

Why have some phones been modified to use an ear piece and special shields been manufactured?

Why do you support the companies and not the science?

How far does high frequency ultra violet light penetrate water, and what would be the warming effect?


James

1. Because people take the cautious route, and the most recent data is, you know, quite recent.

2. Because there are always people ready to profit from health scares (and if the shields *really* blocked microwave energy, they would stop the phones working at all).]

3. What companies? This was not sponsored research.

4. Not very far, and not much (most of the Sun's output is *not* UV).

4. Not very far, and not much (most of the Sun's output is *not* UV).
===================================================================


This answer does not help calculate the amount that U/V warms the sea.

The past twenty years there has been an exceptional cycle of extra U/V from the sun if you had not tried to be so crittical of my posts you would have seen that by now and moved on but like most critticts of JW's facts have little bearing on the matter as predudice raigns supreem for just a little while longer.


James

You seem to be getting agitated - your spelling is getting worse and worse.

Are you annoyed that I will not simply lie down and let you pretend to "win" some points?

You still have not explained your obsession with disproving the observed facts of Science by proving me wrong. Do you think I am such a big wheel in the science world that finding fault with me will bring down the whole edifice?

You credit me with too much influence.

But, back to your rather wandering point...

What "exceptional UV cycle"? UV irradiance has increased by only 3% in the last three centuries. Increased solar UV increases the production of ozone at high altitudes, which *blocks* further UV.

Really, James, you are going to have to do much better than this.

How about starting by deciding what you are trying to prove?

"Evolution is wrong"?

"There is no global warming"?

"There is global warming"?

"Global warming has a natural explanation"?

Or just "Kiteman is wrong"?

Maybe when you have decided what you are arguing about, you can spend some time putting together a vaguely cogent position towards that end.

I was just trying to prove you would try to criticise any thing I posted regardless of what it was.

Case closed

James

Please post a link to any occasion, in all the years we have crossed posts, where I have criticised any post that was composed entirely of factual matter, reasoned logic, or opinions acceptable to a civilised society?

I agree, I have criticised you many times over the years, but if we are to be pedantic about it, it was mainly constructive criticism - I was attempting to guide you towards accepting the facts, acknowledging the truth, learning not to lie or post disingenuities.

Those times I was not constructive, your posts contained nothing redeemable.

I would have been happy to give you credit for admitting that global warming is real and happening, until you back-slid today on the CMB and tried to claim that mainland Eurasian countries are actually cooling, and using that as evidence to disprove GW.

I suggest you buy yourself a diary or calendar to keep track of the date, as you seem to try it every winter, and then again in summer, when you suddenly find out that there is snow in the southern hemisphere...

(I know you will probably claim this post as some sort of "victory", but you must realise that you have gotten this thread back to front? You posted a load of fairly random gibberish, to I responded, then you decided what you were trying to prove all along. Instead, you are supposed to offer up your premise in advance, then work towards proving or disproving it. Or do you still find the basics of Science just that little bit too confusing?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8406839.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394886.stm

"Case closed"?

Hypothetical and unfounded statements not yet close to realisation. Typical provisions for the gullible publick.
>>>>>>>>>>
However it added: "A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.
<<<<<<<<<<<
James

What is hypothetical about the established fact that the first decade of the 21st century is already the warmest on record?

And as for the next year, it is the eruption and El Nino that are hypothetical.

Still need to practice the semantics...

Will semantics explain ten foot of snow were global warming is supposed to be?

James

http://spaceweather.com/

Sunlight shining through ice crystals had produced a bright pair of sundogs and a vivid circumzenithal arc. "These tend to appear on the backside of a storm's clearing line as ice crystals blow through the air," notes Hollingshead. "It's a beautiful sight but not a ton of fun to photograph at 5o F with winds blowing 40 mph."
Photographers, bundle up! More weather is on the way and there should be plenty to see after the storm.



James

"Will semantics explain ten foot of snow were global warming is supposed to be?"

James, what on Earth are you wittering on about?

Why do you suppose that the existence of snow somehow disproves GW?

If you had paid any attention to the facts, one of the things we can expect if the Arctic ice shelf all gives way is a decrease in salinity of the northern oceans, which would change the density of the the sea and switch of the density-sensitive North Atlantic Conveyor.

That would see an end to the flow of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the British Isles, and our unusually-temperate climate would revert to that of other nations on our latitude. Summers and winters like Moscow and Canada.

Are you paying attention this time, James?

Ten-foot snowdrifts in the home counties are a predicted consequence of the next stages of GW.

I also saw this program and am fully aware of what it said.>>>>>>>>>

[[That would see an end to the flow of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the British Isles, and our unusually-temperate climate would revert to that of other nations on our latitude. Summers and winters like Moscow and Canada.]]<<<<<<<<<<<


What the program did not tell you was what the bible had to say on the matter.

There is one thing that is as certain as sun rise tomorrow what the bible has to say on the matter is what will come about, regardless of your desires to the contrary.

That is not including the KJV I hasten to add.

James

"What the program did not tell you was what the bible had to say on the matter."

And why on Earth should it?

You keep trotting out the same vague quotes, pretending that they are about global warming, but in fact there is nothing in the bible about GW, and very little in it about anything relevant to today except as an historical curiosity; what bronze-age men thought about the world, and how later men altered the original texts to suit their personal desires.

(And, yes, I do mean WTS.)

By the way, I don't know what programme you are talking about, as I took my information from a variety of journals. Was it on the BBC (maybe I can watch it on the iPlayer)?

I forgot to add...

"There is one thing that is as certain as sun rise tomorrow what the bible has to say on the matter is what will come about"

Have you finally decided what you are trying to prove, then, that the biblical prophecies are accurate?

OK, then.

Start by listing the OT prophecies that have "come to pass", and giving the evidence to support your claims. Nothing from the NT as evidence, though, because it was written in full knowledge of the OT's prophecies.

Right you can now tell us what is written but first we must tie your arms behind your back and you can only tell us what we want to know. OK

2 Timothy 4:3-4
For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching,
but, in accord with their own desires,
they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. NWT

It does put it slightly different in the KJV.

James

Who are "they"?

What real event does this refer to?

This verse is not a prophecy, it is a vagueness that can be used to fit almost any day since it was written.

Try again.

The time was after the apostles died right down to our day it has always been true.

James