sci.electronics.repair - 21 new messages in 9 topics - digest

sci.electronics.repair
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Sony Bravia KLV-32BX320 Price in India - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/59f8727750b18260?hl=en
* hi - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1d63346396a424a7?hl=en
* Aiwa P30 Power Amplifier Fault - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/a7f97a5f2189fe5a?hl=en
* OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - 8 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* OT: Calibrating a sound level pressure meter - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/21a5e0c259fd4f68?hl=en
* Wholesale links,tiffany,gucci,bvlgri,lv,ed hardy jewelry,alina,925 pure
silver jewelry - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/a5c86bfe1dcd958a?hl=en
* Wholesale Nike Air Jordan Shoes Website: http://www.shoesbags4sale.com - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/cbc149767987e096?hl=en
* Nike wholesale - Nike shoes wholesale. www.shoesbags4sale.com - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c82edcb6ff52fafe?hl=en
* way OT: thrashing swap file in W2K - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/42a5df77841d8177?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sony Bravia KLV-32BX320 Price in India
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/59f8727750b18260?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 11:20 pm
From: ritesh

Sony Bravia KLV-32BX320 http://www.naaptol.com/price/874820-Sony-Bravia-KLV-32BX320-.html
LCD TV is 32 inch LCD tv with high definition (720p) picture quality
with ccfl backlight, bravia engine 3, intelligent picture plus,
digital noise reduction and fm radio.

Information about prices, products, services and merchants is for
informational purposes only. We cannot guarantee that information in
this page is 100% correct. We will not be liable for any omissions,
errors or delays or any kind of losses, injuries and damages arising
from its display or use.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: hi
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1d63346396a424a7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 2:36 am
From: "shahzypk@hotmail.com"

Just Visite These Sites
http://fashion1298.blogspot.com

http://cricketin2011.blogspot.com

http://fashion4paki.blogspot.com

http://hollywood1233.blogspot.com

http://hotbollywoodactressesno1.blogspot.com

http://pakihealthpk.blogspot.com

http://dogbreedspk.blogspot.com

http://super1213.blogspot.com

http://fashion1299.blogspot.com

http://mehndipk12.blogspot.com

http://goldandsilverpk.blogspot.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 2:34 pm
From: Sjouke Burry

"shah.googlegroups.com:

> Just Visite These Sites

Trying a bit of spamming/trolling on the side???

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Aiwa P30 Power Amplifier Fault
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/a7f97a5f2189fe5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 5:08 am
From: "Mark Zacharias"

"M.Joshi" <M.Joshi.8c83828@diybanter.com> wrote in message
news:M.Joshi.8c83828@diybanter.com...
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to diagnose a fault with an Aiwa P30 DC Stereo Power Amp.
> It is part of a mini separates system consisting of a separate tuner and
> pre-amp.
>
> The power amplifier does not output any audio to the speakers from
> either channels. I have checked that the startup relay engages and both
> the positive and negative power rails seem to be OK?
>
> Any other pointers would be useful.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> --
> M.Joshi

If the amp is functioning to this level, maybe the audio input is missing?
Have you checked the audio level going in? Flat wire connectors make this
difficult, and I'm almost betting this unit uses them... grrr.

Mark Z.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 5:12 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Mark Zacharias" <mark_zacharias@labolgcbs.net> wrote in message
news:4e830e43$0$31312$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com...
> "M.Joshi" <M.Joshi.8c83828@diybanter.com> wrote in message
> news:M.Joshi.8c83828@diybanter.com...
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am trying to diagnose a fault with an Aiwa P30 DC Stereo Power Amp.
>> It is part of a mini separates system consisting of a separate tuner and
>> pre-amp.
>>
>> The power amplifier does not output any audio to the speakers from
>> either channels. I have checked that the startup relay engages and both
>> the positive and negative power rails seem to be OK?
>>
>> Any other pointers would be useful.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> M.Joshi
>
>
> If the amp is functioning to this level, maybe the audio input is missing?
> Have you checked the audio level going in? Flat wire connectors make this
> difficult, and I'm almost betting this unit uses them... grrr.
>
> Mark Z.

When he says "startup relay", is he referring to a relay that turns on the
main power transformer from a standby supply ? I'm not familiar with this
model of Aiwa, but it occurs to me that it may also have an output relay
that's not coming in ?

Arfa

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 2:24 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
>> rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.
>
> Ahem...
> <http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png>

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30. Here's some more
information:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

> from:
> <http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html>
>
>> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate
>> of CO2 rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000
>> years.
>
> Ahem...
> <http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html>

**Again, a 30 year trend merely backs my claim.

>
>> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has
>> been closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
>
> Yep. Track volcanoes.
> <http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html>
> <http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html>

**What are you trying to say? That the temerature of the planet is rising?
That CO2 levels are rising? No argument from me.

>
> Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
> money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide
> for yourself:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy>

**The data presented shows:

* That CO2 levels are rising.
* That average temperatures are trending upwards.

I have no issue with that data.

>
> Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
> the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
> <http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com>

**I am satisfied that AGW has been shown to be the most likey explanation
for the temperature rise that has been noted, with around 95% confidence.
That is not 100% confidence and would likely not qualify for the money. It
is likely that, by the time 100% confidence has been reached, several things
will have occured:

* Milloy will be dead.
* VERY serious problems associated with global warming will be occuring and
the planet will have descended into a state of anarchy. US Dollars will
likely be virtually worthless. Food will be only currency of value.

>
>> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to
>> account for the temperature rise over the last 200 years.
>
> Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
> planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
> determination.

**Which is why measuring the rate of heat retention by the oceans is so
important:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf

Examine the graph on page 4. The planet's oceans store vastly more heat than
the troposphere does. The oceans are warming.

We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring
> albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how
> much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
> ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference
> is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy
> is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently
> important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
> and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that
> solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
> temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
> potential errors.

**Really? Which errors? We know that the Sun output has diminished
(slightly) over the past couple of decades and yet the temperature trend of
the Earth is still up.

>
> There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
> actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR
> imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If
> there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
> temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this
> obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
> there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
> and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
> marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes
> make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other
> complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
> normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.

**Which is why ocean temperature measurements are so important. It is the
planet's oceans that contain the most heat. By a considerable margin.

>
> What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
> to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
> average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large
> number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
> to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
> result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in
> random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same
> method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.
>
> Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
> What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
> certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of
> critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
> time.

**I do not have an "unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC". I accept that
the 95% certainty of AGW is a reasonable figure. What I find irrational is
the fact that many people seem to be clinging to the 5% uncertainty and
hoping that a very large number of very smart scientists are wrong.

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 2:42 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

kreed wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> kreed wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>> <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
>>>>> It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
>>>>> puzzle.
>>>>> <http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
>>
>>>> NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
>>>> accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
>>>> totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
>>>> <http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>>>> 150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>>>> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
>>>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>>
>>> Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
>>> scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
>>> attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
>>
>>> They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
>>> this rubbish out.
>>
>>> IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
>>> those martians want to come and kill us ! :)
>>
>> **Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument
>> does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
>> my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
>> fantasy-land.
>>
>
> I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
> climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving
> my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
> crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering
> into fantasy-land"
>
> Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist
making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual,
you will fail in this action.

>
>
>> Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
>> presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned
>> response. He will receive one.
>>
>
> No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
> out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.

> putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
> if you started abusing him,

**Bollocks. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like
dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally.
You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently
> trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
> you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
> the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
> experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
> think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
> and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

**Bollocks. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has
backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is
extremely insulting to Jeff.

>
> You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
> your direction, so you handle with care.

**Bollocks. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The
truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bullshit is just that:
Complete bullshit. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back
your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some
> others already have studied the matter,and those behind it,

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study
the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have
> made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
> is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
> just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others.

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your
claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data
ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its
> also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
> approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
> don't support me" type bullying.

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked
for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do
so. Your argument has failed.

>
> With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so,

**I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I
prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people
who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common:
They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do
not.

know that I
> generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
> abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.

>
> I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
> being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic
> facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
> mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
> that you cannot argue with.
>
> I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
> mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
> bullshit,

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem
that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete
idiot, since you believe in some mythical bullshit about all these
climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support
your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study
the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult
> member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
> to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
> this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
> what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
> adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
> world works to not be shocked or offended any more :).

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.

>
> I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
> next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
> bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
> cures the hunch-backed".

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.

>
>
>
> I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
> out of it.
>
>
>
>> Still waiting for some answers from you.......

**Still waiting for some answers.......

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 4:59 pm
From: kreed

On Sep 29, 7:42 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> kreed wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >> kreed wrote:
> >>> On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> >>>> <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
> >>>>> It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
> >>>>> puzzle.
> >>>>> <http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
>
> >>>> NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
> >>>> accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
> >>>> totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
> >>>> <http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
> >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> >>>> 150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> >>>> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> >>>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
> >>> Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
> >>> scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
> >>> attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
>
> >>> They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
> >>> this rubbish out.
>
> >>> IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
> >>> those martians want to come and kill us ! :)
>
> >> **Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument
> >> does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
> >> my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
> >> fantasy-land.
>
> > I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
> > climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving
> > my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
> > crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering
> > into fantasy-land"
>
> > Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!
>
> **We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist
> making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual,
> you will fail in this action.
>
>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations
>

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 5:55 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

<snip>

>
> **Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
> problem that they are likely to be correct. >

All ?

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
> 1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
> the theory.
>

Theory ?

Arfa

> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 7:30 pm
From: josephkk

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:32:04 +1000, Jeßus <none@all.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:14:53 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
><arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier'
>>that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
>>have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
>>deniers.
>
><snip>
>
>>My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
>>situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
>>and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic.
>
>See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?
>
>Hmmm, indeed.

I don't see anything inconsistent whatsoever. What i see is two
statements that the AGW crowd has failed to make their case, and they
resent anyone saying so. I also see refusal to join shouting matches.
So, what do you see?

?-)

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 8:17 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Arfa Daily wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> **Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
>> problem that they are likely to be correct. >
>
>
> All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and 3
doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what would
you do?

>
>
> **Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since
> the mid
>> 1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that
>> supports the theory.
>>
>
>
> Theory ?

** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 28 2011 8:23 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

kreed wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:42 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> kreed wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
>>>>>>> It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
>>>>>>> puzzle.
>>>>>>> <http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
>>
>>>>>> NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
>>>>>> accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output
>>>>>> isn't totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach
>>>>>> orbit. <http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>
>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>>>>>> 150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>>>>>> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
>>>>>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>>
>>>>> Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
>>>>> scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens
>>>>> might attack us if we don't do something about man made global
>>>>> warming :).
>>
>>>>> They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
>>>>> this rubbish out.
>>
>>>>> IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no
>>>>> wonder those martians want to come and kill us ! :)
>>
>>>> **Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument
>>>> does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
>>>> my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
>>>> fantasy-land.
>>
>>> I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
>>> climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and
>>> proving my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made
>>> this crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and
>>> veering into fantasy-land"
>>
>>> Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!
>>
>> **We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA
>> scientist making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the
>> claim. As usual, you will fail in this action.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

**I take it, that you failed to actually READ the article before you made
your stupid claim. Here is the rest of what you snipped: