Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Cutting down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring

Take three large shots of your favorite mind numbing substance before reading.

Louise, wasn’t allocated space above to answer, so here it is: I have given myself an order – to simplify things; because complicating don’t change the truth, but is used exclusively for confusing the majority on the street, by people that are scared from the truth. Should I make exception for you? .

Ask anybody that has being using gas for cooking; they will tell you that methane is heavier than O+N on sea-level / in gas state. When you recognise the truth, wouldn’t complicate / massage the facts – instead you look for real reasons: the 4 atoms of hydrogen in the methane molecule only have PROTONS that’s where the gravity is; but no lots of neutrons as in O+N, which take space = volume, but no weight. 2] 2H2 (2 deuterium) in methane hug each other – oxygen + nitrogen in the air stay apart. It’s just a small example; if is something unusual, look for real reasons, don’t make fool of yourself, just to be argumentative. Louise, 4 ball-bearings are heavier than a cork with double the volume. I challenge you: ”you challenge every scientist on this blog; what would they say; is methane heavier than O+N on sea-level – then ask a WORKING PERSON on the gas station that handles methane – will tell us all, who is cherry-picking / who has interest to massage the truth? Definitely the person WORKING with methane will be the one to believe, not a Warmist academic.

Methane is very important subject that will affect the atmosphere / climate. Not for what the propaganda says; but because burning methane depletes lots of oxygen – creating new methane is REVERSING THE DAMAGES; I have A page on methane in the digestive system on my website. Yesterday 62 people visited my website; only 2 people went to the page on methane.= all are avoiding what is most important for their life – instead will keep repeating here about: albedo, noise, observation, forcing, equilibrium bla, bla…. = Sir Humphrey’s empty talk” If you read every sentence of the text I am referring – you will understand how harmful empty talk is – how important exposing the truth is – take the challenge, all of you. It’s a big crime in progress – most of them are plying Sargent Schulz ( I know noooothing) That is a crime in itself

denial with style, or poeing on Judy:)

81 comments:

Russell said...

Warmist hatred of Newt and Ron is just a cover for their love of the neutron-rich coal their mercury-addled religion touts by promoting compact fluorescent bulbs. It takes four of the leftward twisted lamps to equal the wattage of a standard 100 watt Edison bulb, which over its lifetime consumes only 75 KWH of electricity representing less than 100 pounds of US coal.

Four long-lived 23 watt CFL's in contrast consume 920 KWH, requiring over 1000 pounds- a half ton of coal generating ten times the mining risk and emission of cancerous coal tar. Today New Hampshire voters must ask themselves: which candidate really stands for biochar fired electricity and mercury free Nernst glowers in every light socket in the nation?

Nick Barnes said...

Ah! Ah! The Stupid! It Burns!
1. Density of methane at STP: 0.66mg/L. Density of air at STP: 1.23mg/L.
2. "2H2 (2 deuterium) in methane"
3. "creating new methane is REVERSING THE DAMAGES"

Please, make it stop.

Anonymous said...

Dear Russell:

I understand that deniers feel there is no room in in global warming for reality but:

A couple of years ago, I changed all my old fashioned 40 or 60 watt light bulbs and installed CFC's.At the time I had been monitoring my power meter and kept at it for the full year. Just changing bulbs resulted in a 20% drop in electrical consumption. I now use 10.5 kwh per day on average ( 8.5 summer and 12.5 winter).

Saving money is, of course, inevitable. The 27 incandescent bulbs ( assume 40 watts even if a couple might have been 60) used 1080 watts. The 27 13 watt CFC's use 351 watts for the same light levels. The CFC's use 1/3 the power of the old type bulbs.

I also installed 9 4 watt LEDS in place of 50 watt mini spots. 36 vs 360 watts. The LEDS use 1/10 what the old bulbs do.

So far the moder4n bulbs have proven quite reliable. I don't have to buy a pack of incandescents every few months.

Before someone starts to screan Mercury, please

Anonymous said...

Sorry about that the Preview key locked me out.

Please Googe thermostat. A mercury thermostat contains 500 times the mercury a CFC bulb does.

John McManus

toto said...

Russell:

9.5/10. That was just beautiful.

Anonymous said...

I also applaud Russell's efforts - McManus got Poe'd badly. =)

Having said that - I don't think that stupidthedenier is a Poe. His website is too established for that. I do not recommend visiting it, by the way.

-MMM

Anonymous said...

OK. be a bit too sensitive. Both Ben at Wotts Up and Simon at Maribo have attracted what I concider orchestrated attacks lately.

Our Canadian government has developed a type of dementia and 5the stink tanks are at work in the tar sands. One of the things now happening is a slowdown of the replacement of antique lightbulb technology ( Tesla knew fluorescent) whining about mercury.

Sorry:

John McManus

Anonymous said...

Again. I am so frustrated with not being able to edit comments. The comment window is truncated; probably my stupid laptop and the preview will not allow any comments.

Anyway. Please don't kick me off this blog. Here in Nova Scotia rabitts are getting scarce ; and I need some bunny hugs.

John McManus

Anonymous said...

stefanthedenier isn't quite up to the level of Otis E. Ray (timecube.com) but clearly he is in the running.

Antiquated Tory said...

Totally off topic, but I could use a chemist's opinion on this and Eli doesn't have an open thread. "Carbon Dioxide Capture from the Air Using a Polyamine Based Regenerable Solid Adsorbent" http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja2100005?journalCode=jacsat&quickLinkVolume=133&quickLinkPage=20164&volume=133

turboblocke said...

According to Russell's calculation it takes 4 23W CF lamps to equal the wattage of a 100W incandescent. So what? it's the amount of light they give out which is important.

Russell said...

How many air conditioning salesmen does it take to persuade a Nova Scotian to replace his light bulbs with CFC's?

If Newfoundlanders would stop aiming their halogen lamps at the ozone layer, they wouldn't need the Montreal Protocol.

Anonymous said...

Tory, any amine based adsorbent will work. Usually you pay a penalty (heat) for regeneration, so overall it is very expensive when CO2 concentration is low, due to compressor costs to move the air around..Need god-awful amounts of solid sorbent...(Chemical Engineer - actually we take these things and commercialize them) have been looking at amine based systems for flue gas scrubbing..solid sorbents also have to deal with water...

Anonymous said...

Annnd... Russell catches turboblocke, too. Though turboblocke misses the fact that not only does Russell compare CFL to incandescent based on wattage, not light produced, Russell also, brilliantly, does his calculation over the lifetime of the bulb. Russell - have you thought about repeating the calculation for an LED bulb? Those things are such low wattage and long-lifetime, they've got to commit you to ridiculous amounts of coal!

Re: Antiquated Tory: Can't access the paper (no longer have academic access to JACS), but the key questions for air capture of CO2 are always "how much energy does it take to regenerate your adsorbent", "how much adsorbent do you need to capture CO2 on ppm scales", and "how much does it cost". And usually the answers are, "a bunch of energy, a lot of mass, and a lot of dollars", raising the question of why don't you use the energy to displace fossil-fuel electricity rather than using it to suck CO2 out of the air and move giant piles of adsorbent around.

-MMM

carrot eater said...

That can't possibly be real.

jyyh said...

perfectly understandable by forgetting bond lenghts and confusing neutrons with neutrinos...

Robert Huie said...

Folks
stefanthedenier is clearly a humorist. The denier camp, and Judith Curry, are being spoofed. Just read it and enjoy.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Oh, no... Dear Judy is deadly serious.

Martin Vermeer said...

> So what? it's the amount of light they give out which is important.

Eh no, the really important thing is the amount of mercury they contain when you throw them away... so stock up on compact fluorescent before white LEDs take over!

Anonymous said...

Rattus said: "Oh, no... Dear Judy is deadly serious. "

I'd say she should describe some practical examples of MEP, and explain why she eats so much.

Russell said...

MMM: Why bother with LED's when it takes the band gap of three dozen to equal the voltage of a singe incandescent bulb?

Real environmentalists put paid to coal dependence by channeling home basement radon into Curie's Field Emission Spinthariscope, whose enormous beta voltage guarantees 92 million hours of illumination bright as a Welsbach mantle, but completely thoron free!

Timothy Chase said...

Time to start showing Mr Roulette, Slots, Bingo and Blackjack the door, I believe. While I find it somewhat amusing that they all have the first name of "Iphone", I think the world would be better served if they were to create a blog together and exchange their appreciation of each other's posts, and people could go there to enjoy the undiluted pleasure of reading their comments. Or not.

Anonymous said...

John Mason says:

Eli owes John a new head-vice. I had three glasses of wine before reading but it still broke and is beyond economic repair.

I recommend a stringent review of the Rabbet's health and safety policy forthwith.

Yours etc,

John

dhogaza said...

Curry comment from that thread ...

"Kevin Trenberth made the comment that the “missing” heat that had gone into the deep ocean could return. its “conservation of energy”. Not possible owing to the 2nd law (and the results of mixing), unless the temperature of the heat sink substantially rises. Another case of climate scientists using the 1st law, and not the 2nd law"

(raises eyebrow ...)

Hank Roberts said...

> raises eyebrow
Mine fell off at that one.

The solution to heat pollution is dilution??

Marion Delgado said...

I did notice Stefan the Denier's bizarre schizophrenic approach to science. It's doing science with your gut! It works for e. coli, it'll work for h. sapiens, I say!

There are methane balloons. I wonder if he confused propane with methane.

Anonymous said...

Nick, You'll hear the half of the story... stick around.

stefanthedenier

Anonymous said...

METHANEGATE
To cover up the damages in progress, by using methane for misleading; Warmist used another dirty trick. You will be shocked about those damages; first here is their trick:

The good Lord made, methane to be produced as a compound with other heavier elements. By itself, methane is odorless; but is very smelly, when produced. The ‘’smelly’’ bit is the organic particles, the sinker; to make it to sink in the ground. After, those organic particles disintegrate deep in the soil. Warmist to discredit me, they point that; methane is not as heavy as air. Well, they don’t have to tell; how does it sink? Why is so much of it in the ground for fracking, how did it get their; you are not suppose to know. Many times they go to Antarctic, Greenland and bring lots of lies. For you is cheaper to believe them, than to go there in person and see that they are lying. But for methane is NOT necessary – because all of you are producing it! Admit, that it smells, when fresh, is not odourless!

Same as when the cow is belching, or releasing methane from the other end. ‘’METHANEGATE’’ is to cover up the smell. Well, unless the Green People go behind every cow, elephant, bison and instantly purify the methane = they are lying, to use methane for destroying the grazing animals. P.s. methane produced from coal doesn’t smell; that’s where the ‘’cannery in the coal-mine’’ comes from. In the coal-mine the good Lord didn’t need to invent something, to make methane to sink, because is produced in the ground. Organically produced methane above the ground, is never in a pure form. You don’t need to go and sniff the cow’s exhaust, grass clipping from the lawnmower after a week smell same as the cows methane. Simple proof of Warmist ‘’Methanegate’’. Please read the rest on my website, to see what they are really covering up; it will knock your socks off:::

stefanthedenier

Roger Jones said...

"Cannery in the coalmine"

So they're putting coal in cans now?

Roger Jones said...

I reckon Stefan is a poe. And a very funny one.

Anonymous said...

"...that's where the gravity is ..." !!!

Well, it's all levity in this household.

Gravity hasn't a chance against the irresistible force generated by howling gales of laughter.

MinniesMum

Anonymous said...

I agree with Roger Jones - StD has to be a poe.

If not, then he is irrefutable proof that giving internet access to ignorant bozos is the same as giving matches to their 12 year old progeny during the height of a drought-blighted summer...


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. (with lashings of (soured) whipped cream).

Anonymous said...

Roger, to find mistakes in misspelling, easy for any bigot; English is not my first language. But to do it because you are scared from the truth; that is obvious why. Cherry picking is Warmist skill; to make it sound out of contest. If you have stomach for the truth; I CHALLENGE EVERYONE OF YOU, TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE; you will see that it means completely different. Read the page ''METHANEGATE CH4'' and the page on '' Creation off crude oil'' Then you will see who is correct. Take the challenging,or apologise: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com stefanthedenier

Anonymous said...

I didn't know about this blog, it's brilliant. The only bad thing is; it's one sided. We the Skeptics are proving that; the planet is not going to boil and second flood - Warmist are disappointed - so here they misrepresent the facts. Spread the word around: the truth and all the real proofs exist - they are on my website. Anybody that is for the truth and for the good of the world - will rejoice - it will give insomnia to the evil Warmist... but they are asking for it. Happy new year to all.
stefanthedenier

Anonymous said...

Marion; no, I don't confuse methane with propane. Methane by animals is NOT PRODUCED IN PURE FORM!!! That's where they confused you. Unless the Warmist go behind every cow, sheep, buffalo and purify INSTANTLY the methane; methane has its own additives, to make it sink in the ground. That's why they don't do fracking up in the clouds for methane, but in the ground; learn how did it get there. Unfortunately, you and others here cannot understand why your own methane stinks. Some other smart-ass as you pointed that: ''deuterium is odourless'' and it is - but he and you Marion must be a bizarre persons, if you fart pure deuterium. I hope that the few of you have enough dignity, to apologise. Go to my website; read the pages on ''METHANEGATE'' plus the page on ''Crude oil creation'' for your own benefit. You will not make idiot of yourself in future.

Marion and the rest of cementers: I know what you know, but you don't know what I know - therefore I have unfair advantage on you!

stefanthedenier

Russell said...

" I recommend a stringent review of the Rabbet's health and safety policy forthwith."

Eli should begin by checking Ethon's raw liver dish for promethium contamination, the smoke detectors for polonium fallout, and the lab's flagpole for americium run-up.

My working hypothesis is that Stefan is Lubos understudy as Czech presidential climate science advisor.

Anonymous said...

Russell, passing judgement without reading the whole article; it says everything about you. Eli and you, hoping that the earth will boil and second flood; made you into the Desperadoes you are.

Why are you scared from the real story? Learn the truth now; or the truth will be sloughing at you; until you cannot avoid it any-more. Napoleon said: successful general is the one who knows what the opponent knows and has.

Collect in a transparent bottle some fresh methane from a cow, sheep, or your own - as long as there is oxygen in it - to imitate atmosphere - expose it on the sunlight for few hours - it will turn into 2 droplets of water; WILL NOT WAIT FOR 10years. Methane is not produced in a pure form, stop believing IPCC; smell your own methane and see that they are misleading you. Then you read on my website the damages in progress; because of the misleading propaganda regarding methane, CO2.

stefanthedenier

David B. Benson said...

I don't seem to be able to just Add a comment so this is an inappropriated reply.

What does everybody have against Edgar Allen?

David B. Benson said...

New format & conventions not appreciated.

Russell said...

Unfortunately, carbon capture using organic amines creates the aromatic environment of a mighty forest of herrings.

As to Stefan his blog speaks for itself:

"The good Lord made, methane to be produced as a compound with other heavier elements. By itself, methane is odorless; but is very smelly, when produced. The ‘’smelly’’ bit is the organic particles, the sinker; to make it to sink in the ground. After, those organic particles disintegrate deep in the soil. Warmist to discredit me, they point that; methane is not as heavy as air. Well, they don’t have to tell; how does it sink? Why is so much of it in the ground for fracking, how did it get their; you are not suppose to know.

IT'S ALL EXPLAINED / PROVEN ON THIS WEBSITE AND IN MY BOOK. BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. ALL PROVEN NOW, NO NEED TO WAIT 100 YEARS IGNORANCE IS NOT A CRIME. BUT DELIBERATELY IGNORING, REJECTING THE TRUTH; BECAUSE OF SICK IDEOLOGY, EGOTISM, OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IT'S A DOUBLE CRIME !!! (my previous website was constantly sabotaged by a Green administrator. I apologise for any confusion in the past)."

dhogaza said...

"That's why they don't do fracking up in the clouds for methane, but in the ground; learn how did it get there."

It sunk thousands of feet into the ground? I suppose that's how methane gets into landfills, too, it's from the landfill operators farting while driving their bulldozers ...

susan said...

Russell is an old favorite of mine, with biting tongue and many facts at his disposal, so I'm a little baffled by his jeremiad against the newish efficient lightbulbs. My experience is that if anything they are too bright - when using lighting I care about the light, not the wattage, and they do tend a little coldish without that warm tungsten look, but manufacturers have addressed that in various places (IKEA has a good one). Comparing "lifetime" of the bulbs is also odd: the CFCs last something like ten times as long as the old. While most people act on the cost at the market, this can be expensive, like buyer's remorse after an election. Of course the mercury is an issue, and I look forward to the LEDs when they are more common.

On animal waste methane, recently there was an item about using the it for fuel and attending to proper feeding, which requires a little attention - factory farming may profit the guys at the top, but it is killing the rest of us. Sorry I didn't save the link and am as usual lazily incomplete on specifics, but it sounded useful. Unfortunately, like most solutions, it requires us to do something rather than avoid work and spend all our free time at the community circus spending more energy and requiring bigger and fancier spectacles to stay entertained. This morning, while making orange juice from one of those frozen thingies, I realized it had been a long time since I didn't have one of those tailor made spouts on a container that cost a lot more to ship, by weight and volume. We have become addicted to these and as hell unfreezes over, might be smart enough to unlearn that.
(Susan Anderson
BTW: editing requires clicking on the edit button instead of trying to type on the preview; more paying attention which is my point - we don't like doing that any more)

Anonymous said...

MMM, if you don't have stomach for the truth; why should others avoid my website? htpp://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com They don't have to guess from which camp you are coming from.

''METHANEGATE'' is a page on my website - discrediting real proofs, doesn't change the truth. On the end the truth will win - I have all the proofs, facts. You must have tried to suppress the smell of your own methane - discovered that it stinks much more - after
stefanthedenier

Russell said...

Susan, the LED jockey's will eventually brew up a diode array whose elements glissade in bandgap from near IR to indigo, mapping out a fair approximation of the eyeball-comforting black body curve that endears the incandescent bulb to us.

Until it does we will have to suffer the aesthetically challenged apologetics of those too scared of current rates of climate change to allow technology to play catch up even at the accelerated pace of current materials science . Until it does, a lot of lighting systems foredoomed to instant obsolescence will be thrown at consumers and endorsed by soi disant environmentalists.

It is high time to tell them to stop and , literally, wait for the light to change - it took decades to segue from the rapidly dimming glow of carbon Swann and Edison bulbs, past osmium filaments and into the Tungsten Age that is presently fading. The LED's have the physics to do far better than what we see, but their commercial triumph should await their surpassing incandescence on the way to emulating sunlight.

J Bowers said...

Russell, it's already happened. The makers, Zeta, won a £450,000 award from the British government after fulfilling the challenge to create an LED bulb that shines the same as a 60W tungsten (colour temperature 2800) which is called the LifeBulb. It'll cost £20, last for an estimated 25 years at 4 hours per day, save a 25 bulb homeowner £230 per annum in electricity and goes on sale this year.

With a worldwide Ultra-Efficient Lighting market estimated to be worth $33 billion by 2013, why do you think it won't happen?

susan said...

Russell, I beg to differ.

(1) My electric bills *have* gone down. How is that more coal?

(2) My IKEA bulbs and others on the market, had I need to find them, are all that I might wish. The other coldish bright ones are more like daylight than tungsten and very useful, as my old art slides are all too ready to prove (they all have a yellow cast, while the old fluorescents are blueish).

(3) Any attempt to blind me with science or discredit what little I do understand, unfortunately, falls short of my aging brain and failure to complete differential equations at MIT before I quit school and moved on. I understand light pretty well and can paint realistically if I have to, which requires a good practical understanding. I also don't attempt to do my own science, which saves me from the egregious sins of the phony skeptics, who are all about being not even wrong in the most prolific way possible.

Anonymous said...

You are an idiot!!!

Russell said...

J Bowers: I said quite the opposite:

"The LED's have the physics to do far better than what we see,"

I wish the [unmarketed] Zeta bulbs well, but $30 a pop will deter many, and the performance of bandgap array bulbs like it can but improve as the spectrum of III-V compounds expands beyond In- Ga-Al nitrides.


I don't claim the right to limit your lighting choices, but think the case for energy efficiency would make itself better were it made with products based on fully developed materials . Advanced wide bandgap semiconductors like SiC, BP and ScN have yet to appear on the commercial LED scene, and follows that consumers who rush to buy early models of the Zeta may , as you observe , get stuck with them for 25 years- caveat emptor !

My apologies to Susan for the arcane condensed matter riff, but sometimes matter matters.

Anonymous said...

dear Bunny, when you get sober, would you read the whole text; then pas a judgement. I didn't emphasise that: fresh methane is produced in combination with other additives; that makes it heavier than air - to sink. On the presumption that grown up people will read it, they should know that. Same as when you say to somebody 20+20=40, you don't insert first 2+2=4. Cannot fit in one paragraph the lot.

Please read the whole page on my blog ''METHANEGATE'' then be a good sport and apologise. Because people that read it, they know the complete story; unless you apologise; you lose credibility - when in future you try to ridicule somebody. b] There you will find, what are you attacking; most important, the crimes in progress that you are protecting. I know, this days is not getting easy to be an active Warmist; you have to grasp at anything; see if you are capable to notice the damages; have some dignity, do it for your benefit.

Plus characters as Nick Barnes above, to stick their nose on appropriate place and see that they are not farting pure hydrogen / deuterium only; would be very educational for them. Please don't chicken out. Don't be cowards, all of you. Other people already have the benefit of knowing the whole story, com-on Eli; face the truth, or live in shame. I made mistakes in the past, but I was a gentleman enough, to apologise. Eli, read, then number the damages in progress on your website as a dignified apology. Don't lose your respect, people like Nick need your help.

stefanthedenier

owlbrudder said...

Orright, orright, orright ... what the heck is a Poe that people are going on about here? Is it an in-joke about Edgar Allen, or an inscrutable acronym I have not yet unscrewed?

owlbrudder said...

stephanthedenier, I started reading your site and a couple of questions occurred to me. Obviously, English is not your first language and I gather you are located in Australia, so I had some difficulty translating the gist of your arguments.

However, I read this passage a couple of times:
"Because carbon intercepts sunlight, warms the 2 atoms of oxygen in the molecule = they lift and keep him in the upper atmosphere all day; (where cooling is much more efficient). At night CO2 intercepts much more coldness than oxygen and nitrogen (biggest mistake to overlook that); falls down to feed the trees /crops. Laws of physics control the infallible self regulation of heat in the air, not CO2 or shonky climatologist."

I gather you are saying that CO2 rises during the day, due to warming, and falls to the ground at night, due to cooling. It seems simple enough, but I notice that plants grow during the day - some species of grass you can actually watch growing. How is this possible, if all the plant food is high in the atmosphere? On the other hand, plants rest at night. How is this possible, when that is the only time the plant food is available?

I think the problem is that I do not have a sufficiently scientific mind. Perhaps plants suck in lots of CO2 at night, to be used the next day, but then why don't they swell up like balloons at night? Perhaps gravity is hotter at night? Perhaps I need more Curry, in order to follow the logic?

I think you should get your thesis translated into better English (most foreign embassies offer translation services) and submitted to a reputable journal like 'Nature', or 'Climate Modelling', or even 'Model Engineering', so the rest of us can see your rationale in its full glory. Who knows, you may be in line for a Nobel prize in physics, chemistry, biology and sophistry.

PS: reCapcha challenge was 'resawn'. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Anonymous said...

Poe's law (or more accurately, the Schwarz-Morgan-Poe law):

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

StD has to be the hardline version - a SchMorPoe, as it were. After all, no-one could be that crazy without deliberately meaning to be.

Althoughhh... having said that, perhaps this is the Denialist version of Timecube - ClimateCube anyone?


Aside: personally, I like the new wallpaper.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. (with lashings of whipped cream)

David B. Benson said...

But I can now only reply, not add a comment.

EliRabett said...

Eli suspects you now have to register somehow. There must be a comment as box here or there. On the Rabett's screen there is a comment box??

owlbrudder said...

Thank you, Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. (with lashings of whipped cream). I would never have stumbled across that accidentally. My subsequent post at 08:52 PM should be read without smilies. Would I lie to you? "8-)

owlbrudder said...

I am logged into my Google a/c and I see the comment box. Well, you knew that. I knew that.

Russell said...

Russell, passing judgement without reading the whole article; it says everything about you. Eli and you, hoping that the earth will boil and second flood; made you into the Desperadoes you are.
-- stefanthedenier


Desperadoes are best dealt with by adding Prozac to their feed before screening Bambi meets Godzilla.

Anonymous said...

Brudder.

I saw the smilies. ;-)

I thought that I'd use the opportunity to see if I could plant 'SchMorPoe' in the internet subconscious... so spead the word!

On the matter of things poey, I must say that I'm liking the work on this thread. Now if only someone could convince me that Deltoid's 'pentaxz' was operating in the same vein.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. (with lashings of Smiley's whipped cream)

Anonymous said...

Trying out posting as anonymous. testing ... (you .have to scroll down within and/or outside the box and find captcha and hit publish before and after editing or whatever)

Russell, I will continue to enjoy your arguments and by all means "matter matters". That does not invalidate either of our points. I am aware that I am a bit of an intruder on scientific blogs, but will continue to weigh in when I think I have something to say or when I am too full of myself, with apologies to hardworking furry mammals.

(Susan Anderson)

susan said...

ps. a bit like programming, you have to pay attention all the way through and not blame the machine.
"netyzz" (zzzzzz indeed)

Marion Delgado said...

Eli, people can learn from your takedown of DocMartyn. This guy is, well, quite simply, @#$@$ing nuts. Hissinck and Goddard look good in comparison.

Anonymous said...

Q: how many billion off $$ Warmist need, to change some light bulbs? Q: why do the Warmist are taking the credit for the new light bulbs; those bulbs are made by ''working people'' in China; just for screwing them on, Warmist claim moral high ground...? Basic question remains: why the Warmist are referring; less CO2 = green, when the truth is the opposite. Q: who is the clown to know that 151y ago was correct amount of CO2 for the vegetation, please explain.

stefanthedenier

Anonymous said...

Robert Huie; there is more on my website, so you can have even more enjoyment; aren't you lucky? I ( stefanthedenier )bring the truth / facts. If you read what's on my blog - will be like turning all the fluorescent and old fashion light bulbs on. IPCC keeps you in darkness, but not to save on electricity; they know enough that: fungi grow in darkness. globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

stefanthedenier

Anonymous said...

dhogosa; the ''missing heat'' is inside their heads, not in the sea. 1] the ''missing heat'' never existed. 2] not that they don't know how the self-regulation of heat in the troposphere is (which I have in minute details) but they don't know the self-regulatory process for the temperature in the seawater also. Or more precise: they don't want to know - because acknowledgement of my work, would have exposed that the phony GLOBAL warming is PHONY.

When anything introduces extra heat in the water, sun-flares, submarine volcanoes and ''hot vents'': THE EVAPORATION INCREASES!!! That creates more clouds - clouds are the ''SUN-UMBRELLAS'' They reflect / intercept big part of the sunlight 5-6km up, where cooling is much more efficient!!! Plus they bring extra coldness from up there with extra rain, to cool the sea and the land - the extra rain on the land evaporates and cools the soil as secondary benefit. Water controls the climate - saving more storm-water on the land in new dams = improves the climate. On the other hand, there is no such a thing as GLOBAL warming; because oxygen + nitrogen control / regulate the temperature, not CO2 or IPCC!!!!

stefanthedenier

Zibethicus said...

"Napoleon said: successful general is the one who knows what the opponent knows and has."

...I was wondering why you were wearing that hat...

Hank Roberts said...

> color temperature
That's the overall appearance, the sum of the various spikes and jiggles. But a 'white' LED is a fluorescent light -- it uses a blue or ultraviolet LED light source, covered with a phosphor that absorbs many of those high energy photons and re-emits lower-energy photons.

Spectra: http://www.except.nl/consult/artificial-lighting-guide/Light_spectrum_cfl_led_incandescent.jpg
LED lamp (blue), a CFL (green) and an Incandescent (purple) superimposed the solar spectrum (yellow). Note that the energy used by each lamp is at least the area underneath its curve.

JCH said...

Oh dear, I never dreamed you would hear them over the rumble and the roar of my Cat D9.

Pinko Punko said...

If you go through "preview" the commenting works.

Martin Vermeer said...

Yep. I logged into my gmail account, and pop, a comment box

Anonymous said...

@JBowers

do the led lights have mercury in them?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@JBowers

that was me who asked that question in the above post. I have another general question for everyone here, I have been researching U.S. government grants to alternative energy companies and a large chunk of the money went to companies who have board members or affiliates who were large Obama campaign donors. Off the top of my head, I know around 16 billion out of 20 billion went to such companies. If anyone is interested, I can post the precise data, including the companies, the dollar amounts and the Obama campaign contributor affiliations.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, people -- we really need to have a Crackpot Olympics -- or at least a tournament. Oh wait . . . the NIPCC . . . nevermind. Stefanthedenier, I think you have a good shot at publication in the proceedings of a Very Famous Scientifical Conference. Go for it! And give Doug Cotton my warmist regards.

DSL

Russell said...

No

DeWitt said...

LED lights don't have mercury in them, but they do have arsenic. That being said, getting the arsenic out isn't easy. It's incorporated into the LED itself and doesn't exist as a free element like the mercury in a CFL. But there are lots of other semiconductor devices that contain arsenic, either as a dopant or as a component of the semiconductor substrate as in gallium arsenide. That probably means that defunct LED bulbs shouldn't go into land fills but be recycled with other defunct electronics. In an ideal world, any store that sold LED bulbs or CFL's would have a bin for customers to dump their defunct bulbs.

Btw, be careful how CFL's are oriented. I haven't had much luck with putting CFL's into overhead lamp fixtures where the lamp is inverted. The base is where the power supply is located, and it doesn't like being hot. The same goes for running them 24/7.

Russell said...

Not all Light Emitting Diodes contain arsenic- red light emitting gallium arsenide obviously does, but blue light emitting gallium nitride and green emitting indium prosphide don't .

Generally speaking, the wider bandgap shorrer wavelength III-V compound semiconductors are arsenic free, and the arsenic in the other LED pnictide compounds and alloy semiconductors is so stably bound as to pose no plausible ingestion hazard.

Martin Vermeer said...

Dr Jay has a problem with freedom of speech

/me ducks

J Bowers said...

"I have been researching U.S. government grants to alternative energy companies"

Now research subsidies to fossil fuel companies and compare. Then you may feel fulfilled.

Spottedquoll said...

Smells like a load of methyl mercaptan to me. Which I shouldn't be able to smell because it sunk and that would mean all this horrid and smelly gas is lying at ground level and I'll die if I go camping and sleep on the ground. Oh no I'm going to die. Aarrgghhh, or something.

Anonymous said...

stefanthedenier knows that: methane doesn't come out by itself; it's always in combination with other smelly HEAVIER compounds that make it to sink. You can learn a lot on Stefan's / my blog on page ''METHANEGATE'' the damages done by ''crackpots'' that only believe what comes from IPCC. This page here is created for damage control, to put you of getting correct informations on many subjects. If is known by the society what is on my website - Kyoto Protocol would have melted in few months. Check and judge for yourself, don't get deceived

stefanthedenier

Spottedquoll said...

Wow Stefan, I did read it and I'm amazed, so much in there to learn, and I never knew methane was needed to push food through the bovine digestive system. I've never heard of it before and I've worked close to the agricultural sector for quite a lot of years. Your ideas and knowledge is wasted here, you really should find people who aren't so negative and will listen, I suggest talking to some of the Natural Sequence Farming crowd, some of them would be very interested in your ideas, especially those injecting tractor exhaust directly into the soil to fertilise the soil. Google "Exhaust emission fertilisers" and that will tell you all about it. I'm sure you'll get the recognition over there you so richly deserve.

northierthanthou said...

Damn you Nathan Poe! Damn you!!!