Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:57:35 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

various snips

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs
eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about
plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't
even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not
widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a
nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and
centre.

No I am afraid you are wrong.

No I'm right - if you don't believe me go read the article. You
obviously haven't, it doesn't mention 'widescreen TV' once!!! That was
my point. Which you haven't contested.

Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving
the planet so be it.

Saving the planet from what? I'm a geologist, I take the long view :-)

Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always
tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and
down

How much do you use your TV for reading text?

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
[Something crap, as usual]

If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the
climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out.

He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous
statement.

On 2 Jul, 12:41, "Pyriform" wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
[Something crap, as usual]
If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the
climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out.

He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous
statement.

Its only ludicrous if you believe what the nanny state has been force
feeding us on the subject. Global Warming is a cyclical event in our
planets history, its happened before (many times) and it'll happen
again. Where's the proof its direct attributed to modern lifestyle and
'carbon emission'?

Doc

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 12:41, "Pyriform" wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
[Something crap, as usual]
If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the
climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out.

He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous
statement.

Its only ludicrous if you believe what the nanny state has been force
feeding us on the subject. Global Warming is a cyclical event in our
planets history, its happened before (many times) and it'll happen
again. Where's the proof its direct attributed to modern lifestyle and
'carbon emission'?

The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny
state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote. It's
a greenhouse gas, and it behaves according to its physical properties.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to human activities, and this
affects the radiative equilibrium between the incoming solar radiation and
the heat radiated back into space from the upper atmosphere. The planet gets
warmer as a result.

The present warming is acyclic. There are no external forcings to account
for it. I'm always amused by people who triumphantly announce that the
climate is always changing, as if this might somehow have been missed by the
people who actually study the subject! You only know about past climate
changes because of the work of the very people whose field of study is now
telling you that recent warming is our fault!

There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science. The best you can
ever have is a high degree of certainty about something, and that is exactly
where we are with global warming. Further reading:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm (if you want to get straight down
to why CO2 is a problem)

On 2 Jul, 13:22, "Pyriform" wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 12:41, "Pyriform" wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
[Something crap, as usual]
If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the
climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out.

He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous
statement.

Its only ludicrous if you believe what the nanny state has been force
feeding us on the subject. Global Warming is a cyclical event in our
planets history, its happened before (many times) and it'll happen
again. Where's the proof its direct attributed to modern lifestyle and
'carbon emission'?

The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny
state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote. It's
a greenhouse gas, and it behaves according to its physical properties.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to human activities, and this
affects the radiative equilibrium between the incoming solar radiation and
the heat radiated back into space from the upper atmosphere. The planet gets
warmer as a result.

The present warming is acyclic. There are no external forcings to account
for it. I'm always amused by people who triumphantly announce that the
climate is always changing, as if this might somehow have been missed by the
people who actually study the subject! You only know about past climate
changes because of the work of the very people whose field of study is now
telling you that recent warming is our fault!

There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science. The best you can
ever have is a high degree of certainty about something, and that is exactly
where we are with global warming. Further reading:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm(if you want to get straight down to why CO2 is a problem)

Yes, yes I've read it all before and i've seen plenty of 'evidence' to
the contrary.
http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V3/N18/C3.jsp
Until *I* see some definite answers one way or the other I'm remaining
cynical about the whole issue. Even if we *were* to cut our emissions
in accordance with the Kyoto treaty do you *really* think that it will
make much difference?

Doc

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm(if you want to get
straight down to why CO2 is a problem)

Yes, yes I've read it all before

Somehow I doubt that.

and i've seen plenty of 'evidence' to
the contrary.

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html

Well, I don't know what the hell that is. The whole site seems to be the
work of a madman.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm

Hilarious. Denialist research in action. Either say something stupid and
then post a link to someone else saying the same stupid thing, or else post
a link to something that says the opposite of what you claim, and hope that
nobody notices. Here's a quote from that piece:

"In this study, we're seeing remarkable evidence that suggests atmospheric
CO2 levels were in fact dropping at the same time that the planet was
getting colder. So this significantly reinforces the idea that CO2 is a
major driver of climate"

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V3/N18/C3.jsp

Denialist crap. That link misrepresents the results of a paper published in
2000, before even the IPCC's third assessment report, let alone the fourth.

Until *I* see some definite answers one way or the other I'm remaining
cynical about the whole issue.

Since the the question has already been answered as definitively as it needs
to be, we must all be grateful that policy decisions need not depend on
*your* level of cynicism!

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always
tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and
down, this is because
our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you
lose which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy
with only two lines.

Have you got one eye mounted above the other? ..-)

Z

Bob Latham wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Denialist crap.

To take such an aggressive stance strongly suggests that you have
become part of the religion of man made global warming.

You are apparently unaware of the difference between science and religion.
This might help:

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscel...s%20faith.html

Its a pity
you cannot be more open minded as there is a counter argument which
for for me holds more water.

That's the trouble with leaving your mind wide open. All sorts of watery
crap can get in. I notice you chose not to share this counter argument with
us. Is it really that embarrassing?

Although I'm convinced global warming is nothing to do with man I'm
not taking the closed mind religious approach and I don't say other
people's views are crap.

You are convinced, despite the compelling evidence for it, and the lack of
any good evidence to the contrary? *That* is a faith position, I think
you'll find...

WARNING: CROSSPOST ALERT: uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.legal,uk.misc

half_pint (often called half_wit, and currently posting as Lord Turkey
Cough) is a known troll, who has continuously attacked widescreen TV for
years, obsessively saying the same thing over and over, and many people
have said that his posts are typical of an autistic spectrum disorder.

Please don't try to engage with his points about widescreen TV because
he will simply respond with a nonsensical reply or outright abuse, and
he shows no inclination whatsoever towards rational discussion.

He has recently started crossposting between multiple groups, choosing
subjects (like global warming) to sucker people into arguing about
them. He has succeeded in generating long disruptive threads in this way.

If you _must_ reply to him, the past record shows that you're better
off suggesting ways that he might get help for his mental issue,
rather than trying to rebut any argument that he might make which
just seems to drive him deeper into irrationality.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:22:06 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny
state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote.

No, it doesn't. And it would also appear that none of the warm phases
of the many historic climate changes in the past could have been
caused by man's activities - especially seeing that the earlier cycles
occured before there *were* any men on the planet.

The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is occurring
at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict it would
occur. Mere coincidence?

--
Cynic