The Mentality Of LNers Vs. CTers
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4c79bcbf2e77ab8e/256dc67027396ccb?#256dc67027396ccb
>>> "Typical mentality of LN's." <<<
Indeed it is. With that mentality being:
Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
But the average "mentality" of a lot of conspiracy theorists is this
one:
Accept ALL unfounded rumors and hunks of speculation regarding the
murders of JFK, JDT, and LHO....regardless of origin, and regardless
of how silly and stupid-sounding these rumors happen to be.
Great case in point being: The backyard photographs of Lee Harvey
Oswald.
I don't think I'm wrong in saying that even a majority of CTers today
will readily admit that, in their mind, ONE of the backyard photos can
be considered a legitimate, real photo of Lee Oswald that was taken
with LHO's Imperial-Reflex camera in the Neely St. backyard sometime
in early 1963.
But then what do most of those same CTers proceed to do? --- They toss
their common sense out the nearest window and proceed to talk about
how the remaining backyard pics are NOT legit and have been "faked",
"forged", "manufactured", etc.
But in order to believe that one of the pictures is the real McCoy,
while at the same time believing the remainder of the photos are
fraudulent in some manner, a conspiracy theorist has to believe that
the people who were "plotting" to set up and frame Lee Harvey Oswald
for JFK's murder would have felt the need to fake ADDITIONAL PICTURES,
which depict something (LHO in the Neely St. backyard holding guns and
Russian newspapers) that was already depicted in a REAL AND LEGITIMATE
PHOTOGRAPH.
And when confronted with the logical question of "WHY WOULD ANYONE
WANT TO CREATE FAKE PICTURES OF SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN REAL
AND LEGIT FORM?", it seems that most CTers clam up and have no answer.
(Which isn't surprising actually, because there is no logical answer
to explain such silliness.)
Or, just maybe, the following scenario is one that could be purported
by CTers who still want to pretend that some of the backyard pictures
are frauds (even though they will readily admit that the one picture
that was linked to Oswald's camera via its negative IS, indeed, a
legit photograph):
1.) Marina Oswald took one "legitimate" picture of her husband, Lee,
in the Neely backyard on or around March 31, 1963.
2.) The evil conspirators, who were attempting to frame poor schnook
Lee Oswald in the months leading up to JFK's November visit to Texas,
then faked multiple pictures purportedly showing their patsy in the
Neely backyard -- but these conspirators did this WITHOUT EVEN BEING
AWARE THAT A REAL AND GENUINE PHOTO OF THEIR "PATSY" WAS TAKEN BY
MARINA!
3.) And it just so happens, by pure chance and coincidence, that the
FAKE pictures perfectly match the one REAL picture taken by Marina in
the very same backyard setting....right down to every detail, with LHO
holding a bolt-action rifle and wearing a pistol on his hip and
holding two Russian newspapers and wearing black clothing and the sun
shining brightly almost directly overhead, etc., etc.
Maybe that's the answer, huh? The plotters just got very lucky when
their fake pictures just happened to identically match the one real
photo snapped by Marina.
And then those same plotters, on 11/22/63, apparently (per many
conspiracists) got very lucky yet again when their insane plan of
attempting to frame a single patsy named Oswald by firing various guns
at JFK's car from several different directions yielded the following
autopsy results:
"The deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds
inflicted by high velocity projectiles. .... The projectiles were
fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the
deceased." -- FROM PAGE 6 OF JFK'S OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT [WR; Pg.
543]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm
Conspiracists who favor any type of theory that has multiple gunmen
HITTING John F. Kennedy with rifle bullets from more than one gun must
certainly admit that those multiple gunmen sure as heck got mighty
lucky when JFK's three autopsy surgeons attached their signatures to
the document that contains the above paragraph.
After all, a MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY assassination plot like the one that
a vast majority of conspiracy theorists seem to think was pulled off
in Dealey Plaza in November '63 is the type of insane and needlessly
reckless plot that you don't see many people/plotters get away with
every day of the week.
And just think....per some CTers, James Files GOT AWAY WITH MURDERING
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, but then (many years later) he
decided he wanted to GET THE CREDIT for murdering the President,
instead of basking forever in the secure knowledge that he had
actually killed JFK and gotten away scot-free.
Go figure that mindset.
Robert Harris
David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is
between those who seek the truth and those who do not.
Sadly, those who do not, identify themselves by their closed minds, their
bigotry, and their hatred of those who prove them wrong.
Which "side" are you on David?
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
Nice going, David, you made three claims and scored three errors. CE133-A,
CE133-B and 133-C, the available backyard photographs, show differences in
their backgrounds. The newspapers were printed in English and the shadows
show that the shining sun far from overhead.
Where on Earth you get your information is known only to you. Educated
people know that the equatorial region of the southern hemisphere is the
only place on Earth where the sun could shine nearly directly overhead
during early March.
Further the Militant, the more easily recognized paper seen in the
backyard photographs, was anti Soviet. How you can label this New York
City publication as "Russian" boggles a rational mind.
Finally, the professionals who examined the backyard photographs cited the
differences in the backgrounds as evidence that camera snapped the
pictures from three differing locations.
Your command of the evidence never ceases to entertain us.
Herbert
The Dutchman
Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his
use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and
length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/
minute data?
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4c79bcbf2e77ab8e/256dc67027396ccb?#256dc67027396ccb
>
>
>>>> "Typical mentality of LN's." <<<
>
>Indeed it is. With that mentality being:
>
>Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
Nonsense. We have just observed many LNs contribute to the thread
about wacky LN theories. Individuals, no matter what their opinion,
come up with silly ideas.
>But the average "mentality" of a lot of conspiracy theorists is this
>one:
For someone so immersed in the assassination swamp land, I am
surprised you have not developed a more sophisticated and realistic
attitude about other buffs, The need to categorize, classify and
label whole swaths of people who really have nothing in common is
bizarre but commonplace nowadays.
The idea of an "average mentality" is a non-starter. It is a silly
idea. A wacky idea.
The saturation on the airwaves, internet and print media of rabid
partisanship plays a role, I suppose.
There is nothing to be gained by such overgeneralization of people. It
was a technique recommended by the CIA to attack people who questioned
the Warren Commission Report. But it has become old hat nowadays when
we observe LNs commenting on the wackiest LN theory.
Lay down your arms. Rhetoric is for the pulpit not serious research.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Torontoi
claviger
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
>
> Indeed it is. With that mentality being:
>
> Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
Missouri. Show me."
Like the little old lady in the commercial, "Where's the beef?!"
CTs can't produce either, so they go shopping at the Theories-R-Us
bookstore, which is why we have umpteen theories surrounding this
case.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Dec 7, 7:54�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>>
>> >>> "Typical mentality of LN's." <<<
>>
>> Indeed it is. With that mentality being:
>>
>> Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
>David,
>
>The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
>Missouri. Show me."
Here again, we notice an LN poster with a seeming inability to qualify
his statements. Whether this is simply due to lack of care in
preparing the post or simple rhetorical partisanship, we cannot be
sure, but it clearly reveals a mentality less than comfortable with
black and white situations.
As some LNs have amply demonstrated themselves, plenty of LNs have
offered wacky theories, yet some LNs overlook that fact when they
leap to unjustified generalizations. We can be sure John McAdams does
not do so, and grades his students on the strength of their argument
rather than their opinion on the assassination.
>Like the little old lady in the commercial, "Where's the beef?!"
Ask one LN where the shot hit the head, and you'll get one answer; ask
another and you'll get another answer.
>CTs can't produce either, so they go shopping at the Theories-R-Us
>bookstore, which is why we have umpteen theories surrounding this
>case.
There is a list of wacky theories propounded by LNs for your perusal
on the newsgroup.
LNs have no lock on wacky theories by any means, but they contribute
their fair share. Be gentle on them. Use qualifiers.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
David Von Pein
>>> "David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is between those who seek the truth and those who do not. .... Which "side" are you on David?" <<<
I'm on the side where all of the common sense resides.
And I'm on the side where all of the physical evidence resides too --
the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" side.
You, Robert Harris, have added in a bunch of gunshots that only exist
in your conspiracy-oriented mind, and nowhere else.
But at the end of the day you're still left having to explain the
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, which is physical evidence that does NOT support
"conspiracy" in the JFK murder case.
The physical evidence--all of it--conclusively supports the following
conclusion:
Lee Harvey Oswald took his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63 and
fired three shots from that gun at John F. Kennedy, killing the
President with the third shot.
Period.
Your theory about a shooter in the Dal-Tex Building AND another
shooter in front of JFK's car doesn't make any logical sense at all,
especially your theory that has a series of SILENCED shots coming from
the Dal-Tex.
Here's why your theory is illogical from the get-go (no matter which
way you choose to go with respect to the question of: "Was Lee Harvey
Oswald just a patsy?"):
1.) If Oswald was being framed as a lone patsy for President Kennedy's
assassination, then your theory involving at least two other gunmen
(besides Oswald) falls to pieces right off the bat -- because there's
no way in the world that any sane and rational "plotters" are going to
risk shooting at JFK from at least THREE directions (using at least
THREE different guns, of course) and then expect all of the evidence
to lead back to JUST THE PATSY named Oswald in the Book Depository.
That idea is nuts on its face. (And somebody should go inform Oliver
Stone of this fact asap, too.)
2.) And if Oswald wasn't being "set up" to take the lone fall for
JFK's murder, then there would be absolutely no reason under the moon
for any of the Dealey Plaza shooters to be using SILENCERS on their
weapons. (Silencers, as you rightly point out in your video, can cause
serious problems with the guns they are attached to, often resulting
in the target being missed entirely.)
As a further reminder to Bob Harris and all other conspiracy
theorists, I offer up the following two images, which are images that
(in tandem) tell an important and often-overlooked story with respect
to where the evidence leads in the murder case of John F. Kennedy:
Maybe it's time to face facts, Robert Harris -- your theories about
the way John Kennedy died simply do not mesh with the hard facts and
evidence connected to the President's assassination.
How many more years will you keep pretending that your subjective
theories are a legitimate substitute for the real facts and evidence
in the JFK case?
David Von Pein
December 7-8, 2009
http://www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com
ShutterBun
Herb's right: they were not "Russian" newspapers. Marxist or
Communist newspapers would be more accurate. But yes, I thought I had
put a pretty decent nail in the "misaligned shadows" theory a while
ago.
I'd be happy to repost:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/40/oswald133ab.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9454/oswald133bfinaldate.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2889/oswald133b34angles.jpg
Slight discrepancies in modeling aside, this should prove once and for
all that any shadow anomalies are stricltly caused by the position of
the objects in 3-D space, and how they react with the terrain/
surrounding object. This is the same type of argument the Moon-
landing Hoax crowd have been claiming about the LEM shadows, and
disproven just as easily.
David Von Pein
>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?" <<<
No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to conspiracy
theorists. The CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
There are still CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,
and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-iconic.html
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>
>>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?" <<<
>
>No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to [some] conspiracy
>theorists. [Some] CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
>theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>
>Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
>There are still [some] CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,
>and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>
>http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-iconic.html
Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?
Some poeple deny global warming. So what?
There are lots of kooky ideas out there.
Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.
What time did the casket arrive anyway?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John Blubaugh
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
This last statement makes no sense. On one hand the LNs have always
said that one of the reasons Oswald must have acted alone is that no
one else has ever stepped up an taken credit for it. There had been no
death bed confession (although there was, they just wouldn't accept
it). This must mean that Oswald was the LN. Then you say here that
this is CT thought. Absurd!! By the way, if you had a little fire and
brimstone here and there in this diatribe, you would sound a whole lot
like Obaba's exminister.
JB
tomnln
I notice You had no comment on the CIA running Anti-Castro/Pro-Castro
Organizations "TOGETHER" from the Same Address.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/3126%20%20HARLENDALE.htm
3126 Harlendale
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c398da5-362d-4cbb...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Sandy McCroskey
> On 7 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
This coming from the fellow who started a thread called "The Common
Thread Among LNs..."!
/sandy
bigdog
Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.
jas
>
> Lay down your arms. Rhetoric is for the pulpit not serious research.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Torontoi
rest of post snipped for space
Ah, there's those two controversial "R" words in one sentence regarding
the JFK assassination debate -- research and rhetoric.
Research what? The JFK assassination was solved 45 years ago, then re-
solved 30 years ago. Last time I looked, "researching" in science is
trying to find out an unknown. The only major recent exception is
Bugliosi's book, but this was written not to research further any new
aspect of the case but rather to reiterate what actually happened, then
research and discuss -- then debunk -- the numerous conspiracy theories
that have cropped up since 1963. It is a book to finally "set the record
straight."
I applaud the people, both CT and LN, who take the time and effort to read
and study both sides of the assassination, with, at times maybe a CT
offering up a fresh way to look at an already debunked angle, as with Bob
Harris' theory of a Z-285 shot from the Dal-Tex. It's obvious he really
believes this shot occurred, and he goes to great lengths to try to prove
it. This effort in itself is noble and I give him an A for effort.
It's also very helpful when people like Dave Reitzes, John McAdams, Dave
Von Pein, tomnln (Rossley), and others take the time to construct and
maintain some very good, in depth and informative web sites concerning the
assassination, as well as rebut the CT arguments in their many
well-written articles.
But, in the final analysis, the assassination has already been researched
with a fine tooth comb, and its conclusions already reached that Oswald
acted alone -- a long time ago. Really, the only "research" left to be
done is the LNs constantly quashing the CT claims of a conspiracy, and
maybe a conspiracy author taking on a grey area such as the Odio incident
in a failed attempt to show a conspiracy in his/her book, as in Kaiser's
"Road to Dallas."
This is why I like to use rhetoric in my posts here, because after all the
research has been done, rhetoric sometimes is needed to simply reaffirm
what really happened in Dealey.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?"<<<
>
> No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to conspiracy
> theorists. The CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
> theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>
No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to the WC defenders.
The WC defenders will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked theory
out of the closet for the 1500th time. And they'll log on every month with
a new alias and post the same crap as before.
> Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
> There are still CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,
> and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>
Another good example of this is the Single Bullet Theory. There are
still WC defenders who believe that fiction, and no amount of refuting it
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics.
It is between those who seek the truth and those who do not. .... Which
"side" are you on David?"<<<
>
>
> I'm on the side where all of the common sense resides.
>
That's a good tactic. When you don't have any facts or evidence on your
side, claim that you're using common sense. Like the common sense that
told everyone that the Earth is flat.
John Blubaugh
The battle here is between those who THINK they know the truth and
those who are constantly asking questions and examining evidence.
JB
Anthony Marsh
The old tricks are the best tricks. McAdams and his ilk still resort to
Red Baiting. Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over. McCarthyism
is so last Century.
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Torontoi
>
>
>
>
>
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh, my, we wouldn't want to say bad things about Communists, would we?
>Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over.
I noticed.
My side won.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
aeffects
battle? when will you *begin* the battle? begin with the WCR? carry on
shithead!
Anthony Marsh
Well, it was interesting, but it didn't answer all the questions and he
could not answer all my questions.
I happen to believe that the backyard photographs are genuine, but it is
not reassuring to me when people try to prove it and screw up little
details which open the door for the kooks.
Same thing with the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And Zapruder film.
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>On 8 Dec 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
><anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/8/2009 9:22 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>>> On 7 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The old tricks are the best tricks. McAdams and his ilk still resort to
>>Red Baiting.
>
>
>Oh, my, we wouldn't want to say bad things about Communists, would we?
>
>
>>Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over.
>
>I noticed.
>
>My side won.
Yup.
Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
credit rating will be downgraded. It would be lovely to hear a
politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.
>
>.John
PF
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8eafbd9f-fcf7-4b6d...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 10:12 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is
> between those who seek the truth and those who do not.
>
> Sadly, those who do not, identify themselves by their closed minds, their
> bigotry, and their hatred of those who prove them wrong.
>
> Which "side" are you on David?
>
> Robert Harris
bigdog wrote;
Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.
I write;
The battle is between the LN's who Repeat the "Charges/Conclusions" of the
WCR.
(Without benefit of evidence/testimony)
AND;
The CT's who Disagree with those "conclusions" WITH "Evidence/Testimony".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
It wasn't early March, Herb, it was the last day of March.
Common sense dictates this: One picture was positively linked to Oswald's
camera, which means that ALL the pictures are certainly genuine. (Or would
you like to theorize about plotters creating fake pics even though at
least one genuine existed depicting an identical scene in that Neely
backyard.)
A CTer's lack of logical thinking never ceases to entertain the acj/ aaj
masses.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2652623ef90792c5
>>> "This last statement [in the post linked above] makes no sense. On one
hand the LNs have always said that one of the reasons Oswald must have
acted alone is that no one else has ever stepped up and taken credit for
it." <<<
I don't recall having ever utilized that line of thinking before.
But it would be nice if some CTer (somewhere) could place a little bit of
solid evidence on the table to back up their notions that other bullets
besides Oswald's penetrated the victims.
Don't you agree?
>>> "There had been no deathbed confession (although there was, they just
wouldn't accept it)." <<<
Of course not. Because no "confession" has ever been backed up by any kind
of solid support or evidence. Might as well have had my grandmother
confess before she passed on. Her confession would have been just as valid
as any we've seen to date, including Jimmy Files' laughable story
(although, granted, Files didn't concoct his bald- faced lies while on his
"deathbed").
>>> "By the way, if you had a little fire and brimstone here and there in
this diatribe, you would sound a whole lot like Oba[m]a's exminister." <<<
I've got some ordered from "F&B.com". It should be arriving shortly. (I
got a good holiday deal on the brimstone, too. 2-for-1 sale.)
http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com
Herbert Blenner
You are misreading my criticism of DVP. My disagreement with David's claim
that the sun was nearly directly overhead is not an endorsement of those
who say the shadows are wrong. This should be obvious to anyone who
realizes that when the sun is near the zenith objects cast shadows of
negligible length.
At the spring equinox in late March, the maximum inclination angle of the
sun for Dallas would have been 57 degree. This angle is 33 degree from
directly overhead.
The rate of change of this maximum inclination angle was approximately 2.7
degree per week. So for early March this maximum inclination angle would
have been about 52 degree and approximately 60 degree for early April. In
all cases the sun was far from being nearly overhead.
Herbert
bigdog
You can refute that the earth is round too I people will continue to
believe it. Why? Because it is true. Just because you can't handle the
truth doesn't mean the rest of us should reject it.
bigdog
Maybe someday "those who are constantly asking questions and examining
evidence" will be able to come up with some answers, but they never can
seem to get past the "asking questions" phase. But what the hell. It's
only been 46 years. No sense in rushing these things.
Anthony Marsh
Deval Patrick. It's called political suicide.
>>
>> .John
>
>
> PF
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Dec 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/8/2009 9:22 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>>> On 7 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The old tricks are the best tricks. McAdams and his ilk still resort to
>> Red Baiting.
>
>
> Oh, my, we wouldn't want to say bad things about Communists, would we?
>
You can't, you don't. They're our largest creditor, our largest trading
partner. That's fine with you.
>
>> Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over.
>
> I noticed.
>
> My side won.
>
Our side won.
claviger
> >The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
> >Missouri. Show me."
> Here again, we notice an LN poster with a seeming inability to qualify
> his statements. Whether this is simply due to lack of care in
> preparing the post or simple rhetorical partisanship, we cannot be
> sure, but it clearly reveals a mentality less than comfortable with
> black and white situations.
What part of "Show me" did you not understand?
I'm comfortable with Black, White or Gray. For instance, One Shooter
does not guarantee No Conspiracy, nor does Two Shooters guarantee
Conspiracy. Is that gray enough for you?
> As some LNs have amply demonstrated themselves, plenty of LNs have
> offered wacky theories, yet some LNs overlook that fact when they
> leap to unjustified generalizations.
Can you name some of those plentiful examples?
> We can be sure John McAdams does not do so, and
> grades his students on the strength of their argument
> rather than their opinion on the assassination.
Doesn't their argument support their opinion? How often are they
different?
> Ask one LN where the shot hit the head, and you'll get one answer; ask
> another and you'll get another answer.
Yes that is a lively debate, EOP vs cowlick. One LN makes a compelling
argument for a shot z270.
And there is some difference of opinion on when and where the first
shot took place. By and large LNs agree the facts point to one
assassin who had the ability to pull off a low tech ambush of the
Presidential motorcade from an elevated position not easily recognized
and safe from return fire, which offered a possible chance to escape.
> There is a list of wacky theories propounded by LNs for your perusal
> on the newsgroup.
Where is that list located? When you say "wacky" do you mean
illogical, implausible, impossible, irrational, or mentally
incompetent?
> LNs have no lock on wacky theories by any means, but they contribute
> their fair share. Be gentle on them. Use qualifiers.
Can you point to those wacky theories so we can discuss them?
What is interesting about your commentary is that I get the feeling
most CTers think LNers are in lockstep with each other, so thanks for
noticing that is not the case. What I do see however, is the LN
community doesn't have as large a deviation from the mean as the CT
community. There is much more diversity in CT opinions and they are a
lot more creative in their thinking. I also notice they are more
accommodating in the acceptance of what they deem as evidence. What
amazes me is how often a CT will point to one possible fact and
celebrate this discovery as the key that unlocks the whole mystery. So
often they find it is far less significant than they thought. A case
in point is the paper sack debate.
By contrast LNs are more holistic in considering the available
evidence. Some CTs are completely flummoxed when asked how their pet
fact fits into the whole puzzle. There is no question CTs are more
emotionally invested in the conspiracy solution, with an almost
religious fervor. For them it is more of a crusade than an
investigation. I started off a convinced CT but a noticed a trend. CT
books made bold statements but never delivered on the expectations
they aroused. If facts ever surface proving conspiracy I can shrug and
say, oh well, I was right the first time. There is no question the
Kennedy brothers had enemies and I can understand the motives of those
various enemies, so if conspiracy is ever proved beyond a doubt I can
accept it, but here is the problem. After 46 years there has been no
compelling evidence or credible confessions to confirm conspiracy.
Until that kind of evidence is forthcoming I don't see how the basic
LN theory can be characterized as wacky.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
They've just figured out Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with a
slave and that Napoleon died from arsenic poisoning.
The idea that a length of time is relevant to the truth is simply
absurd.
Anthony Marsh
> Peter,
>
>>> The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
>>> Missouri. Show me."
>> Here again, we notice an LN poster with a seeming inability to qualify
>> his statements. Whether this is simply due to lack of care in
>> preparing the post or simple rhetorical partisanship, we cannot be
>> sure, but it clearly reveals a mentality less than comfortable with
>> black and white situations.
> What part of "Show me" did you not understand?
> I'm comfortable with Black, White or Gray. For instance, One Shooter
> does not guarantee No Conspiracy, nor does Two Shooters guarantee
> Conspiracy. Is that gray enough for you?
>
Gray? How about transparent? You seriously claim two shooter does not
mean conspiracy? How about 100? Just a coincidence, eh?
>> As some LNs have amply demonstrated themselves, plenty of LNs have
>> offered wacky theories, yet some LNs overlook that fact when they
>> leap to unjustified generalizations.
> Can you name some of those plentiful examples?
>
SBT, Hickey. Oswald paid $6,500 by a red-haired Negro DGI agent to
assassinate Kennedy.
jas
Oh, au contraire, mon fraire!
It's not absurd.
Did "they" perform two separate exhaustive and in-depth investigations
within 20 years after this Jefferson "conception," and after Napoleon
died in order to find these facts out?
No.
Did "they" perform two exhaustive and in-depth investigations within
20 years after the JFK assassination with the conclusion that Oswald
acted alone?
Yes.
My point is made.
Peter Fokes
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Tis a pleasant sport to watch the LN's frolick and play!
Reminds me of bear-baiting, etc.
<quote on>
It was a sport very pleasant, of these beasts, to see the bear with
his pink eyes leering after his enemies approach, the nimbleness and
wayt of the dog to take his advantage, and the force and experience
of the bear again to avoid the assaults. If he were bitten in one
place, how he would pinch in another to get free, that if he were
taken once, then what shift, with biting, with clawing, with roaring,
tossing and tumbling, he would work to wind himself free from them.
And when he was loose, to shake his ears twice or thrice with the
blood and the slather about his physiognomy, was a matter of goodly
relief.
<quote off>
Robert Laneham letter describing spectacle of bear-baiting in 1575.
Of course, no blood is shed here.
Almost, but not a drop!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're right. In this case, the truth was determined within 12 hours.
Then there was the case of Zachary Taylor. They dug him up a few years
ago. Guess what they found out. He's still dead.
Sandy McCroskey
My regards—somewhat askance—to you too, Mr. Fokes.
(If, indeed, you are addressing me...)
/sandy
markmark
> On 8 Dec 2009 13:07:02 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?" <<<
>
> >theorists. [Some] CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
> >theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>
> >and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>
>
> Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?
>
> Some poeple deny global warming. So what?
>
> There are lots of kooky ideas out there.
>
> Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.
>
> What time did the casket arrive anyway?
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Peter
You lump global warming deniers in with Flat Earthers? You have got to be
kidding! I’m a proud member of the global warming deniers for a very
good reason. The whole thing is a hoax. There hasn’t been any global
warming since 1998. And although there has been some warming during the
20th Century, it was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. And it was also
about 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period after the last
ice-age than it is now. How do you explain that in light of the fact that
there was practically no man-made carbon dioxide before the industrial
revolution? And the Earth was just fine back then. Greenland was actually
green.
Time for some common sense. If you swallow Al Gore’s theory, that the
average temperature of the Earth grew by about 1 degree during the 20th
Century, and it’s our fault because of CO2 emissions, then you have a
big problem. By default, you have to believe that the Earth’s average
temperature stayed constant, not varying even one degree for thousands of
years, and then only started to rise during modern times. Otherwise, what
is the significance of a one degree rise? Obviously this is ridiculous. I
know of no one who would admit to believing such a thing. And yet,
that’s exactly what they have to believe. And consider this. CO2 makes
up about 1/3 of one percent of our atmosphere, a very small amount. The
vast majority of that is natural. That means the minuscule amount that we
have put in has been causing the temperature to rise? Be real!
If you want some good reading on the subject, get Dr. Fred Singer’s book
“Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 Years.” Singer is one of the
world’s leading climatologists. He lays out exactly what’s been
happening with global warming and cooling. Hint: it has nothing to do with
mankind.
Mark
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 8, 1:14=A0pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Dec 2009 13:07:02 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-i...
>>
>> Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?
>>
>> Some poeple deny global warming. So what?
>>
>> There are lots of kooky ideas out there.
>>
>> Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.
>>
>> What time did the casket arrive anyway?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
>Peter
>
>You lump global warming deniers in with Flat Earthers? You have got to be
>kidding! I=92m a proud member of the global warming deniers for a very
>good reason. The whole thing is a hoax. There hasn=92t been any global
>warming since 1998. And although there has been some warming during the
>20th Century, it was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. And it was also
>about 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period after the last
>ice-age than it is now. How do you explain that in light of the fact that
>there was practically no man-made carbon dioxide before the industrial
>revolution? And the Earth was just fine back then. Greenland was actually
>green.
>
>Time for some common sense. If you swallow Al Gore=92s theory, that the
>average temperature of the Earth grew by about 1 degree during the 20th
>Century, and it=92s our fault because of CO2 emissions, then you have a
>big problem. By default, you have to believe that the Earth=92s average
>temperature stayed constant, not varying even one degree for thousands of
>years, and then only started to rise during modern times. Otherwise, what
>is the significance of a one degree rise? Obviously this is ridiculous. I
>know of no one who would admit to believing such a thing. And yet,
>that=92s exactly what they have to believe. And consider this. CO2 makes
>up about 1/3 of one percent of our atmosphere, a very small amount. The
>vast majority of that is natural. That means the minuscule amount that we
>have put in has been causing the temperature to rise? Be real!
>
>If you want some good reading on the subject, get Dr. Fred Singer=92s book
>=93Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 Years.=94 Singer is one of the
>world=92s leading climatologists. He lays out exactly what=92s been
>happening with global warming and cooling. Hint: it has nothing to do with
>mankind.
>
The irony here is that we have a genuine climate conspiracy.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1
. . . but people like Peter are going to deny or minimize it, since
the conspirators are on there side of the ideological spectrum!
Peter Fokes
I haven't followed the climate conspiracy controversy and have no
opinion.
I do know that a frigate plying the waters of the Artic encountered
ice sheets that broke apart with ease for huge distances despite
recent geological surveys that stated the ice was thick and solid.
My concern with climate has nothing to do with ideology, as John
suggest. That is just rhetoric on his part.
I do know for a fact it is -5 celsius here, and I woke up early to
shovel snow off the driveway!
>
>.John
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
claviger
> This last statement makes no sense. On one hand the LNs have always
> said that one of the reasons Oswald must have acted alone is that no
> one else has ever stepped up an taken credit for it. There had been no
> death bed confession (although there was, they just wouldn't accept
> it).
If you believe that "confession" by E Howard Hunt then you know the CIA
had nothing to do with the assassination. Hunt claims Sturgis was putting
together a team to plan a hit and opines he was acting on direct authority
from Cord Meyer, who blamed JFK for breaking up his marriage. LBJ was
aware of Meyer's vendetta and did nothing to stop it. How and why they
decided on a Corsican hit man is not explained. So there you have it. JFK
was not murdered for political reasons, the motive was primal basic
instinct.
Anthony Marsh
The best time to do something about a catastrophy is before it happens
rather than after it.
Anthony Marsh
Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of those
businesses to deny that they played any part in it.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Read the article.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 8, 1:14 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Dec 2009 13:07:02 -0500, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?"<<<
>>
>>> No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to [some] conspiracy
>>> theorists. [Some] CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
>>> theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>>
>>> Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
>>> There are still [some] CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,
>>> and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>>
>>> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-i...
>>
>> Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?
>>
>> Some poeple deny global warming. So what?
>>
>> There are lots of kooky ideas out there.
>>
>> Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.
>>
>> What time did the casket arrive anyway?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> Peter
>
> You lump global warming deniers in with Flat Earthers? You have got to be
> good reason. The whole thing is a hoax. There hasn?t been any global
> warming since 1998. And although there has been some warming during the
Naughty, naughty. Didn't you get the memo? You are now supposed to admit
that global warming is real, but that it is natural, not caused by people.
> 20th Century, it was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. And it was also
> about 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period after the last
> ice-age than it is now. How do you explain that in light of the fact that
> there was practically no man-made carbon dioxide before the industrial
> revolution? And the Earth was just fine back then. Greenland was actually
> green.
>
You are trying to explain it away as a natural cycle. Of course there are
natural cycles, but other factors can exacerbate or moderate extremes of
the cycle. It may be that we are trying to warm up the Earth to mitigate
the effects of the next ice age. If that is what you are trying to do then
you should claim that you are just tying to save the world. As in the
sense that Klatuu meant in the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Humans don't matter, he's just trying to save planet Earth.
> Time for some common sense. If you swallow Al Gore?s theory, that the
> average temperature of the Earth grew by about 1 degree during the 20th
> Century, and it?s our fault because of CO2 emissions, then you have a
> big problem. By default, you have to believe that the Earth?s average
Wrong tactic. You should claim that is a good thing. Don't admit anything.
> temperature stayed constant, not varying even one degree for thousands of
> years, and then only started to rise during modern times. Otherwise, what
The Earth's temperature does not stay constant. It fluctuates.
> is the significance of a one degree rise? Obviously this is ridiculous. I
> know of no one who would admit to believing such a thing. And yet,
> that?s exactly what they have to believe. And consider this. CO2 makes
> up about 1/3 of one percent of our atmosphere, a very small amount. The
> vast majority of that is natural. That means the minuscule amount that we
> have put in has been causing the temperature to rise? Be real!
>
Ever hear of harmonic reasonance? Or tipping point?
> If you want some good reading on the subject, get Dr. Fred Singer?s book
> ?Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 Years.? Singer is one of the
> world?s leading climatologists. He lays out exactly what?s been
> happening with global warming and cooling. Hint: it has nothing to do with
> mankind.
>
Naive.
> Mark
>
Anthony Marsh
Don't forget the Iceman murdered by a shot in the back with an arrow.
claviger
> Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
> credit rating will be downgraded.
So will the currency. The exchange rate for the dollar is a reflection
of the collective international credit rating.
> It would be lovely to hear a politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.
Why would that be lovely, when deficit spending is inherently
irresponsible? So you think it fair that politicians over spend and the
taxpayer gets screwed with paying the bill? That is like some guy having a
big party at a restaurant and the next day sending the tab to all the
neighbors on his street.
There are three basic meanings to the latin root word for tax, one is
neutral and the other two are negative. What it comes down to is the
modern definition of the word ‘tax’ basically means ‘burden’, so
politicians who raise taxes increase the burden on our economy, society,
and taxpayers. Why does that sound “lovely”?
Sandy McCroskey
> On 11 Dec 2009 00:20:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 12/10/2009 2:10 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> The irony here is that we have a genuine climate conspiracy.
>
>
> >> . . . but people like Peter are going to deny or minimize it, since
> >> the conspirators are on there side of the ideological spectrum!
>
> >> .John
>
> >Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
> >and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of those
> >businesses to deny that they played any part in it.
>
> Read the article.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The article says: "The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that
catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any
foundation."
Seems though that a lot of people are taking it for granted that they
do reveal such a thing.
/sm
markmark
Read Dr. Singer's book, then get in touch with him and tell him he's
naive.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
How many cycles has Mr. Singer been able to study with a human
population of the current size? Only a fraction of a cycle? How can
he possible arrive at a conclusion about the effects of of human
beings on this long wave cycle when that variable has increased
exponentially in less than the time frame of ONE of his cycles?
Of course, there might be long wave cycles of climate warming but how
can he judge the magnification of the cycle extremes if the data does
not exist (and it does not) for the impact of massive population
growth and industrialization over the course of more than a FRACTION
of one of his cycles?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
markmark
> On 12 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500, markmark <markcorn...@comcast.net>
>
What Dr. Singer does in his book is prove that the evidence Gore and his
people use to prove man-made global warming isn't used correctly. For
instance, he documents how the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels follows
an increase in temperature, rather than causes it. That’s right. First
the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
Mark
markmark
> On 12 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500, markmark <markcorn...@comcast.net>
>
How many cycles was the warming side able to study? Their computer
models didn't even predict the slight cooling we've seen the last 10
years. How can they predict the weather way down the road?
Mark
markmark
>
> - Show quoted text -
OOPS! I wrote that bass akwards. My apologies to Dr. Singer. What I
meant to write was, first the temperature rises, as part of a natural
cycle, then the CO2 level rises.
Mark
John Blubaugh
Perhaps we are more concerned with the Republicans deficit spend to
wage wars all over the place and leave no money for infrastructure
repair or social programs here. But I am sure that spending is just
fine with you.
JB
Anthony Marsh
By noticing long term trends. By comparing photographs of glaciers which
have almost disappeared recently to photographs of the same glaciers which
had grown enormously during the Little Ice Age.
So, do you think global warming is a good thing? You realize, I hope, that
humans have been able to adapt to climate change more successfully than
many other species over the past few millions of years.
Anthony Marsh
> the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
> up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
>
> Mark
>
Ah, excuse me? You just disproved your own point. You just said that C02
levels rose and then the Earth warmed up. That is global warming. You
have to show that the C02 level was caused by something other than human
activities. Can you do that?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 12/12/2009 2:16 PM, markmark wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:49 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500, markmark<markcorn...@comcast.net>
>>
>>
>> What Dr. Singer does in his book is prove that the evidence Gore and his
>> people use to prove man-made global warming isn't used correctly. For
>> instance, he documents how the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels follows
>> an increase in temperature, rather than causes it. That?s right. First
>> the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
>> up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
>>
>
>
>Ah, excuse me? You just disproved your own point. You just said that C02
>levels rose and then the Earth warmed up. That is global warming. You
>have to show that the C02 level was caused by something other than human
>activities. Can you do that?
>
>
You need to sort of cause and effect. The argument is that the CO2
capacity of the worlds oceans is greater when they are cooler. Thus
warming causes them to give up CO2. If so, warming causes CO2 levels.
.John
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the case for man made global warming was as strong as the alarmists
claim, why is it they cannot present their case to the public in an honest
fashion. The 10 year cooling period you mention is a classic case. They
seem to be in denial. I was watching the Daily Show and Jon Stewart had on
one of Obama's czars (don't ask me which one, there's so many I can't keep
them straight). Stewart asked him about a claim by a global warming
skeptic that global temperatures had peaked in the late 1990s. The czar
replied, "I don't know what data he's looking at". The classic non-denial
denial. The statement he made is probably true. He probably didn't know
what data the skeptic was looking at. But he didn't dispute that the earth
has been cooling the past decade, even though he tried to leave that
impression.
I for one am not the least bit concerned about globabl warming. I have no
idea what the climate will be like 10 years from now or 100 years from now
and I don't care. If a warmer climate is such a bad thing, why do so many
people retire to Florida and Arizona. If things get too hot to suit me,
I'll just turn up the AC and pop open a cold brewski.
jas
Hmmmm.... I think I just saw Obama announcing the sending of 30,000
more troops to Afghanistan.
Last time I looked he was of the Democratic party persuasion.
Goes to show you-- war is non-partisan.
Herbert Blenner
> It wasn't early March, Herb, it was the last day of March.
>
> Common sense dictates this: One picture was positively linked to Oswald's
> camera, which means that ALL the pictures are certainly genuine. (Or would
> you like to theorize about plotters creating fake pics even though at
> least one genuine existed depicting an identical scene in that Neely
> backyard.)
>
> A CTer's lack of logical thinking never ceases to entertain the acj/ aaj
> masses.
I hope you can read the following artice. It is in Russian, just like
the newspapers.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/scratch.htm
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
You have no answers. Neither does he.
markmark
>
> - Show quoted text -
It doesn't matter what I, or anyone else, thinks. As the title of Dr.
Singer's book says, global warming and cooling are unstoppable.
Anthony Marsh
>> the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
>> up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
>>
>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> OOPS! I wrote that bass akwards. My apologies to Dr. Singer. What I
> meant to write was, first the temperature rises, as part of a natural
> cycle, then the CO2 level rises.
>
Well, that's better. So what do YOU think causes the natural cycle?
> Mark
>
Anthony Marsh
He just said his theory was that the CO2 level rose and then warmed up.
Now you say that the global warming causes the oceans to give up more CO2.
So what you are describing is a chain reaction. What sparked that chain
reaction?
Why not try blaming volcanoes or sunspots?
markmark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Be honest Anthony. Before now, had you ever heard of Dr. Fred Singer?
Whether you had or had not heard of him, you just KNOW he has no
answers?
Mark
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not really, he is just cleaning up another Republican mess.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 12, 5:11 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 12:35 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Peter,
>>
>>>> Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
>>>> credit rating will be downgraded.
>>
>>> So will the currency. The exchange rate for the dollar is a reflection
>>> of the collective international credit rating.
>>
>>>> It would be lovely to hear a politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.
>>
>>> Why would that be lovely, when deficit spending is inherently
>>> irresponsible? So you think it fair that politicians over spend and the
>>> taxpayer gets screwed with paying the bill? That is like some guy having a
>>> big party at a restaurant and the next day sending the tab to all the
>>> neighbors on his street.
>>
>>> There are three basic meanings to the latin root word for tax, one is
>>> neutral and the other two are negative. What it comes down to is the
>>> politicians who raise taxes increase the burden on our economy, society,
>>
>> Perhaps we are more concerned with the Republicans deficit spend to
>> wage wars all over the place and leave no money for infrastructure
>> repair or social programs here. But I am sure that spending is just
>> fine with you.
>>
>> JB
>
> Hmmmm.... I think I just saw Obama announcing the sending of 30,000
> more troops to Afghanistan.
>
> Last time I looked he was of the Democratic party persuasion.
>
And a Liberal, which is one reason why the conservatives hate him.
> Goes to show you-- war is non-partisan.
>
In case you can't remember that far back, Democrats were in power during
WWII.
markmark
> >> the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
> >> up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
>
> >> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > OOPS! I wrote that bass akwards. My apologies to Dr. Singer. What I
> > meant to write was, first the temperature rises, as part of a natural
> > cycle, then the CO2 level rises.
>
> Well, that's better. So what do YOU think causes the natural cycle?
>
>
>
> > Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are probably dozens of things that happen to cause the cycles. An
increase or decrease in solar activity for one. If I didn't know better
Anthony, I would think you really are interested in knowing why the Earth
naturally heats up and cools down. If you are, read Dr. Singer's book.
Again, it's called "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years." Of
course, you already KNOW he has no answers.
Mark
Anthony Marsh
Now I'm confused. I thought you said that he said global warming doesn't
exist.
jas
Bulls**t. He is cleaning up what Clinton missed in the terrorists knocking
at our doors back in the 90s, ala, 9/11. Bush just happened to be the
elected president at the time.
How many major terrorist attacks were there under Clinton's watch?
1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
You think terrorism just started the day Bush was elected, or on Monday
Sept. 10th, 2001?
As I said -- and you don't listen -- war is non-partisan, but still you
throw your politics at it thinking it's any one person's, or party's,
fault.
Was WWII FDR's fault? If you say yes you lose because FDR was Democrat. If
you say no you lose because FDR was POTUS during the years of the Nazi
war-machine buildup in Europe.
So, do yourself and everyone else a favor and put a lid on your cheap-
shot political jabs.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
>>>> up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
>>
>>>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> OOPS! I wrote that bass akwards. My apologies to Dr. Singer. What I
>>> meant to write was, first the temperature rises, as part of a natural
>>> cycle, then the CO2 level rises.
>>
>> Well, that's better. So what do YOU think causes the natural cycle?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> There are probably dozens of things that happen to cause the cycles. An
> increase or decrease in solar activity for one. If I didn't know better
> Anthony, I would think you really are interested in knowing why the Earth
> naturally heats up and cools down. If you are, read Dr. Singer's book.
> Again, it's called "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years." Of
> course, you already KNOW he has no answers.
>
> Mark
>
Of course there is a natural cycle. That is not what they mean when they
talk about global warming. The longest cycles are related to the Earth's
orbit and cause the Ice Ages. We are headed towards another Ice Age after
a few millennia of warmer climates. So, do you want global warming to
prevent the next Ice Age? Is that your goal? Or perhaps you live a few
miles inland and want a beachfront property without having to move.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html
Environment
Ice Ages Blamed on Tilted Earth
By Michael Schirber, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 30 March 2005 09:09 am ET
Buzz up!
Add to delicious del.icio.us
Digg It! Digg It!
Save to Newsvine Newsvine
Add to reddit reddit
Comments (3) | Recommend (7)
In the past million years, the Earth experienced a major ice age about
every 100,000 years. Scientists have several theories to explain this
glacial cycle, but new research suggests the primary driving force is
all in how the planet leans.
The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it
orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity,
explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have
24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.
But the angle is not constant - it is currently decreasing from a
maximum of 24 degrees towards a minimum of 22.5 degrees. This variation
goes in a 40,000-year cycle.
Earth's Wobble ...
... is like the precession of a spinning top.
IMAGE: NASA
Peter Huybers of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Carl Wunsch of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have compared the timing of
the tilt variations with that of the last seven ice ages. They found
that the ends of those periods - called glacial terminations -
corresponded to times of greatest tilt.
"The apparent reason for this is that the annual average sunlight in the
higher latitudes is greater when the tilt is at maximum," Huybers told
LiveScience in a telephone interview.
More sunlight seasonally hitting polar regions would help to melt the
ice sheets. This tilt effect seems to explain why ice ages came more
quickly - every 40,000 years, just like the tilt variations -- between
two and one million years ago.
"Obliquity clearly was important at one point," Huybers said.
Colder planet
The researchers speculate that the glacier period has become longer in
the last million years because the Earth has gotten slightly colder -
the upshot being that every once in a while the planet misses a chance
to thaw out.
The glacial cycles can be measured indirectly in the ratio of heavy to
light oxygen in ocean sediments. Simply put, the more ice there is on
Earth, the less light oxygen there is in the ocean. The oxygen ratio is
recorded in the fossils of small organisms - called foraminifera, or
forams for short - that make shells out of the available oxygen in the
ocean.
"These 'bugs' have been around for a long time - living all across the
ocean," Huybers said. "When they die, they fall to the seafloor and
become part of the sediment."
Drilled out sediment cores from the seafloor show variations with depth
in the ratio of heavy to light oxygen - an indication of changes in the
amount of ice over time. This record of climate change goes back tens of
millions of years.
By improving the dating of these sediments, Huybers and Wunsch have
showed that rapid decreases in the oxygen ratio - corresponding to an
abrupt melting of ice - occurred when the Earth had its largest tilt.
Other orbital oddities
The significance of this relationship calls into question other
explanations for the frequency of ice ages.
One popular theory has been that the noncircular shape, or eccentricity,
of Earth's orbit around the Sun could be driving the glacial cycle,
since the variations in the eccentricity have a 100,000-year period.
Curiously different, but interesting.
Variation in Orbit
Period
Tilt
40,000 yr
Wobble
20,000 yr
Eccentricity
100,000 yr
By itself, though, the eccentricity is too small of an effect. According
to Huybers, changes in the orbit shape cause less than a tenth of a
percent difference in the amount of sunlight striking the planet.
But some scientists believe a larger effect could be generated if the
eccentricity fluctuations are coupled with the precession, or wobble of
the Earth's axis. It's like what is seen with a spinning top as it slows
down.
Earth's axis is currently pointing at the North Star, Polaris, but it is
always rotating around in a conical pattern. In about 10,000 years, it
will point toward the star Vega, which will mean that winter in the
Northern Hemisphere will begin in June instead of January. After 20,000
years, the axis will again point at Polaris.
Huybers said that the seasonal shift from the precession added to the
eccentricity fluctuations could have an important effect on glacier
melting, but he and Wunsch found that the combined model could not match
the timing in the sediment data.
Skipping beats
The question, then, that Huybers and Wunsch had to answer: How does the
40,000-year tilt cycle make a 100,000-year glacial cycle? A more careful
sediment dating has shown is that the time between ice ages may on
average be 100,000 years, but the durations are sometimes 80,000 years,
sometimes 120,000 years -- both numbers are divisible by 40,000. It
appears there was not a mass melting every time the tilt reached its
maximum.
Did You Know?
101 Amazing
Earth Facts
"The Earth is skipping obliquity beats," Huybers explained.
The planet only recently started missing melting opportunities. Although
the researchers have no corroborating evidence, they hypothesize that
the skipping is due to an overall cooling of the planet.
The last major glacial thaw was 10,000 years ago, which means that the
Earth is scheduled to head into another ice age. Whether human
influences could reverse this, Huybers was hesitant to speculate. Other
researchers have found evidence that the process of climate warming can
set up conditions that create a global chill.
"What we have here is a great laboratory for seeing how climate changes
naturally," he said. "But this is a 100,000-year cycle, whereas global
warming is happening a thousand times faster."
* A New Spin on Earth's Rotation
* How Global Warming Can Chill the Planet
* Tsunami-Causing Earthquake Trimmed Bulge off Earth's Middle
* Changes in Earth's Orbit Led to Calm Climate Period
* Scientist Seeks Reason Why the Earth Wobbles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
he general term "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" denotes a
geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the
Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental
ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. An ice age is a
natural system. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra
cold climate are termed "glaciations". Glaciologically, ice age implies
the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern
hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in an ice age (because
the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]
More colloquially, "the ice age" refers to the most recent colder period
that peaked at the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 20,000 years ago,
in which extensive ice sheets lay over large parts of the North American
and Eurasian continents. This article will use the term ice age in the
former, glaciological, sense: glacials for colder periods during ice
ages and interglacials for the warmer periods.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Origin of ice age theory
* 2 Evidence for ice ages
* 3 Major ice ages
* 4 Glacials and interglacials
* 5 Positive and negative feedbacks in glacial periods
o 5.1 Processes which make glacial periods more severe
o 5.2 Processes which mitigate glacial periods
* 6 Causes of ice ages
o 6.1 Changes in Earth's atmosphere
o 6.2 Position of the continents
o 6.3 The Uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding
Mountain Areas above the Snowline
o 6.4 Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
o 6.5 Variations in the Sun's energy output
o 6.6 Volcanism
* 7 Recent glacial and interglacial phases
o 7.1 Glacial stages in North America
* 8 Effects of glaciation
* 9 See also
* 10 References
* 11 External links
[edit] Origin of ice age theory
In 1742 Pierre Martel (1706???1767), an engineer and geographer living in
Geneva, visited the valley of Chamonix in the Alps of Savoy.[3] Two
years later he published an account of his journey. He reported that the
inhabitants of that valley attributed the dispersal of erratic boulders
to the fact that the glaciers had once extended much further.[4] Later
similar explanations were reported from other regions of the Alps. In
1815 the carpenter and chamois hunter Jean-Pierre Perraudin (1767???1858)
explained erratic boulders in the Val de Bagnes in the Swiss canton of
Valais as being due to glaciers previously extending further.[5] An
unknown woodcutter from Meiringen in the Bernese Oberland advocated a
similar idea in a discussion with the Swiss-German geologist Jean de
Charpentier (1786???1855) in 1834.[6] Comparable explanations are also
known from the Val de Ferret in the Valais and the Seeland in western
Switzerland.[7] Such explanations could also be found in other parts of
the world. When the Bavarian naturalist Ernst von Bibra (1806???1878)
visited the Chilean Andes in 1849???1850 the natives attributed fossil
morraines to the former action of glaciers.[8]
Meanwhile, European scholars had begun to wonder what had caused the
dispersal of erratic material. From the middle of the 18th century some
discussed ice as a means of transport. The Swedish mining expert Daniel
Tilas (1712???1772) was, in 1742, the first person to suggest drifting sea
ice in order to explain the presence of erratic boulders in the
Scandinavian and Baltic regions.[9] In 1795, the Scottish philosopher
and gentleman naturalist, James Hutton (1726???1797), explained erratic
boulders in the Alps with the action of glaciers.[10] Two decades later,
in 1818, the Swedish botanist G??ran Wahlenberg (1780???1851) published his
theory of a glaciation of the Scandinavian peninsula. He regarded
glaciation as a regional phenomenon.[11] Only a few years later, the
Danish-Norwegian Geologist Jens Esmark (1763???1839) argued a sequence of
worldwide ice ages. In a paper published in 1824, Esmark proposed
changes in climate as the cause of those glaciations. He attempted to
show that they originated from changes in the Earth's orbit.[12] During
the following years, Esmark???s ideas were discussed and taken over in
parts by Swedish, Scottish and German scientists. At the University of
Edinburgh Robert Jameson (1774???1854) seemed to be relatively open
towards Esmark's ideas. Jameson's remarks about ancient glaciers in
Scotland were most probably prompted by Esmark.[13] In Germany, Albrecht
Reinhard Bernhardi (1797???1849), professor of forestry at Dreissigacker,
adopted Esmark's theory. In a paper published in 1832, Bernhardi
speculated about former polar ice caps reaching as far as the temperate
zones of the globe.[14]
Independently of these debates, the Swiss civil engineer Ignaz Venetz
(1788???1859) in 1829, explained the dispersal of erratic boulders in the
Alps, the nearby Jura Mountains and the North German Plain as being due
to huge glaciers. When he read his paper before the Schweizerische
Naturforschende Gesellschaft, most scientists remained sceptical.[15]
Finally, Venetz managed to convince his friend Jean de Charpentier. De
Charpentier transformed Venetz's idea into a theory with a glaciation
limited to the Alps. His thoughts resembled Wahlenberg's theory. In
fact, both men shared the same volcanistic, or in de Charpentier???s case
rather plutonistic assumptions, about earth history. In 1834, de
Charpentier presented his paper before the Schweizerische
Naturforschende Gesellschaft.[16] In the meantime, the German botanist
Karl Friedrich Schimper (1803???1867) was studying mosses which were
growing on erratic boulders in the alpine upland of Bavaria. He began to
wonder where such masses of stone had come from. During the summer of
1835 he made some excursions to the Bavarian Alps. Schimper came to the
conclusion that ice must have been the means of transport for the
boulders in the alpine upland. In the winter of 1835 to 1836 he held
some lectures in Munich. Schimper then assumed that there must have been
global times of obliteration (???Ver??dungszeiten???) with a cold climate and
frozen water.[17] Schimper spent the summer months of 1836 at Devens,
near Bex, in the Swiss Alps with his former university friend Louis
Agassiz (1801???1873) and Jean de Charpentier. Schimper, de Charpentier
and possibly Venetz convinced Agassiz that there had been a time of
glaciation. During Winter 1836/7 Agassiz and Schimper developed the
theory of a sequence of glaciations. They mainly drew upon the preceding
works of Venetz, of de Charpentier and on their own fieldwork. There are
indications that Agassiz was already familiar with Bernhardi's paper at
that time.[18] At the beginning of 1837 Schimper coined the term ice age
(???Eiszeit???).[19] In July 1837 Agassiz presented their synthesis before
the annual meeting of the Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft at
Neuch??tel. The audience was very critical or even opposed the new theory
because it contradicted the established opinions on climatic history.
Most contemporary scientist thought that the earth had been gradually
cooling down since its birth as a molten globe.[20]
In order to overcome this rejection, Agassiz embarked on geological
fieldwork. He published his book Study on glaciers ("??tudes sur les
glaciers") in 1840.[21] De Charpentier was put out by this as he had
also been preparing a book about the glaciation of the Alps. De
Charpentier felt that Agassiz should have given him precedence as it was
he who had introduced Agassiz to in depth glacial research.[22] Besides
that, Agassiz had, as a result of personal quarrels, omitted any mention
of Schimper in his book.[23]
Altogether, it took several decades until the ice age theory was fully
accepted. This happened on an international scale in the second half of
the 1870???s.[24]
[edit] Evidence for ice ages
There are three main types of evidence for ice ages: geological,
chemical, and paleontological.
Geological evidence for ice ages comes in various forms, including rock
scouring and scratching, glacial moraines, drumlins, valley cutting, and
the deposition of till or tillites and glacial erratics. Successive
glaciations tend to distort and erase the geological evidence, making it
difficult to interpret. Furthermore, this evidence was difficult to date
exactly; early theories assumed that the glacials were short compared to
the long interglacials. The advent of sediment and ice cores revealed
the true situation: glacials are long, interglacials short. It took some
time for the current theory to be worked out.
The chemical evidence mainly consists of variations in the ratios of
isotopes in fossils present in sediments and sedimentary rocks and ocean
sediment cores. For the most recent glacial periods ice cores provide
climate proxies from their ice, and atmospheric samples from included
bubbles of air. Because water containing heavier isotopes has a higher
heat of evaporation, its proportion decreases with colder
conditions[25]. This allows a temperature record to be constructed.
However, this evidence can be confounded by other factors recorded by
isotope ratios.
The paleontological evidence consists of changes in the geographical
distribution of fossils. During a glacial period cold-adapted organisms
spread into lower latitudes, and organisms that prefer warmer conditions
become extinct or are squeezed into lower latitudes. This evidence is
also difficult to interpret because it requires (1) sequences of
sediments covering a long period of time, over a wide range of latitudes
and which are easily correlated; (2) ancient organisms which survive for
several million years without change and whose temperature preferences
are easily diagnosed; and (3) the finding of the relevant fossils, which
requires a lot of luck.
Despite the difficulties, analyses of ice core and ocean sediment cores
has shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few
million years. These also confirm the linkage between ice ages and
continental crust phenomena such as glacial moraines, drumlins, and
glacial erratics. Hence the continental crust phenomena are accepted as
good evidence of earlier ice ages when they are found in layers created
much earlier than the time range for which ice cores and ocean sediment
cores are available.
[edit] Major ice ages
Ice age map of northern central Europe. Red: maximum limit of
Weichselian ice age; yellow: Saale ice age at maximum (Drenthe stage);
blue: Elster ice age maximum glaciation.
There have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past.
Outside these periods, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in
high latitudes.[citation needed]
Rocks from the earliest well established ice age, called the Huronian,
formed around 2.4 to 2.1 Ga (billion) years ago during the early
Proterozoic Eon. Several hundreds of km of the Huronian Supergroup are
exposed 10-100 km north the North Shore of Lake Huron extending from
near St. Ste. Marie to Sudbury NE of Lake Huron. with giant layers of
now-lithified till beds, dropstones, varves, outwash, scoured basement
rocks. Correlative Huronian deposits have been found near Marquette,
Michigan and correlation has been made with Paleoproterozic glacial
deposits from Western Australia.
The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the
last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the
Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which
glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[26] possibly being ended by the
accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The
presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would
inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two
major sinks for CO2 at present."[27] It has been suggested that the end
of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and
Cambrian Explosion, though this model is recent and controversial.
A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million
years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period. There
were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years
ago in South Africa during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods,
associated with the Karoo Ice Age. Correlatives are known from
Argentina, also forming in the center of the ancient supercontinent
Gondwanaland.
An ice sheet on Antarctica began to grow some 20 million years ago. The
current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58
million years ago. during the late Pliocene when the spread of ice
sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen
cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000-
and 100,000-year time scales called glacials (glacial advance) and
interglacials (glacial retreat). The earth is currently in an
interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.
All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland,
Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.
Sediment records showing the fluctuating sequences of glacials and
interglacials during the last several million years.
Ice ages can be further divided by location and time; for example, the
names Riss (180,000???130,000 years bp) and W??rm (70,000???10,000 years bp)
refer specifically to glaciation in the Alpine region. Note that the
maximum extent of the ice is not maintained for the full interval.
Unfortunately, the scouring action of each glaciation tends to remove
most of the evidence of prior ice sheets almost completely, except in
regions where the later sheet does not achieve full coverage.
[edit] Glacials and interglacials
See also: Interglacial
Shows the pattern of temperature and ice volume changes associated with
recent glacials and interglacials
Minimum (interglacial, black) and maximum (glacial, grey) glaciation of
the northern hemisphere
Minimum (interglacial, black) and maximum (glacial, grey) glaciation of
the southern hemisphere
Within the ice ages (or at least within the last one), more temperate
and more severe periods occur. The colder periods are called glacial
periods, the warmer periods interglacials, such as the Eemian Stage.
Glacials are characterized by cooler and drier climates over most of the
Earth and large land and sea ice masses extending outward from the
poles. Mountain glaciers in otherwise unglaciated areas extend to lower
elevations due to a lower snow line. Sea levels drop due to the removal
of large volumes of water above sea level in the icecaps. There is
evidence that ocean circulation patterns are disrupted by glaciations.
Since the Earth has significant continental glaciation in the Arctic and
Antarctic, we are currently in a glacial minimum of a glaciation. Such a
period between glacial maxima is known as an interglacial.
The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for
more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical
interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years," but this has been called
into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[28] argues
that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous
interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital
forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000
years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming [29] (see
Milankovitch cycles). Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased
greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive
use of fossil fuels continues[30]. At a meeting of the American
Geophysical Union (December 17, 2008), scientists detailed evidence in
support of the controversial idea that the introduction of large-scale
rice agriculture in Asia, coupled with extensive deforestation in Europe
began to alter world climate by pumping significant amounts of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the last 1,000 years. In turn,
a warmer atmosphere heated the oceans making them much less efficient
storehouses of carbon dioxide and reinforcing global warming, possibly
forestalling the onset of a new glacial age.[31]
[edit] Positive and negative feedbacks in glacial periods
Each glacial period is subject to positive feedback which makes it more
severe and negative feedback which mitigates and (in all cases so far)
eventually ends it.
[edit] Processes which make glacial periods more severe
Ice and snow increase the Earth's albedo, i.e. they make it reflect more
of the sun's energy and absorb less. Hence, when the air temperature
decreases, ice and snow fields grow, and this continues until
competition with a negative feedback mechanism forces the system to an
equilibrium. Also, the reduction in forests caused by the ice's
expansion increases albedo.
Another theory proposed by Ewing and Donn in 1956[32] hypothesized that
an ice-free Arctic Ocean leads to increased snowfall at high latitudes.
When low-temperature ice covers the Arctic Ocean there is little
evaporation or sublimation and the polar regions are quite dry in terms
of precipitation, comparable to the amount found in mid-latitude
deserts. This low precipitation allows high-latitude snowfalls to melt
during the summer. An ice-free Arctic Ocean absorbs solar radiation
during the long summer days, and evaporates more water into the Arctic
atmosphere. With higher precipitation, portions of this snow may not
melt during the summer and so glacial ice can form at lower altitudes
and more southerly latitudes, reducing the temperatures over land by
increased albedo as noted above. (Current projected consequences of
global warming include a largely ice-free Arctic Ocean within 5???20
years, see Arctic shrinkage.) Additional fresh water flowing into the
North Atlantic during a warming cycle may also reduce the global ocean
water circulation (see Shutdown of thermohaline circulation). Such a
reduction (by reducing the effects of the Gulf Stream) would have a
cooling effect on northern Europe, which in turn would lead to increased
low-latitude snow retention during the summer. It has also been
suggested that during an extensive ice age glaciers may move through the
Gulf of Saint Lawrence, extending into the North Atlantic ocean to an
extent that the Gulf Stream is blocked.
[edit] Processes which mitigate glacial periods
Ice sheets that form during glaciations cause erosion of the land
beneath them. After some time, this will reduce land above sea level and
thus diminish the amount of space on which ice sheets can form. This
mitigates the albedo feedback, as does the lowering in sea level that
accompanies the formation of ice sheets.
Another factor is the increased aridity occurring with glacial maxima,
which reduces the precipitation available to maintain glaciation. The
glacial retreat induced by this or any other process can be amplified by
similar inverse positive feedbacks as for glacial advances.
[edit] Causes of ice ages
The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice
age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial???interglacial periods
within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important:
atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane);
changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles
(and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic
plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of
continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind
and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of
the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites,
and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.
Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in
Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of
greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can
change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at
which weathering removes CO2).
Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and
Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove
enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor
of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that
approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity)
occurred in the past 10 million years.[33][34]
[edit] Changes in Earth's atmosphere
There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice
ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult
to establish cause and effect (see the notes above on the role of
weathering). Greenhouse gas levels may also have been affected by other
factors which have been proposed as causes of ice ages, such as the
movement of continents and volcanism.
The Snowball Earth hypothesis maintains that the severe freezing in the
late Proterozoic was ended by an increase in CO2 levels in the
atmosphere, and some supporters of Snowball Earth argue that it was
caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. The hypothesis also warns of
future Snowball Earths.
The August, 2009 edition of Science (journal) provides further evidence
that changes solar insolation provide the intitial trigger for the Earth
to warm after an Ice Age, with secondary factors like increases in
greenhouse gases accounting for the magnitude of the change. [35]
William Ruddiman has proposed the early anthropocene hypothesis,
according to which the anthropocene era, as some people call the most
recent period in the Earth's history when the activities of the human
race first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's
climate and ecosystems, did not begin in the 18th century with the
advent of the Industrial Era, but dates back to 8,000 years ago, due to
intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors. It was at
that time that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stopped
following the periodic pattern of the Milankovitch cycles. In his
overdue-glaciation hypothesis Ruddiman states that an incipient ice age
would probably have begun several thousand years ago, but the arrival of
that scheduled ice age was forestalled by the activities of early farmers.
[edit] Position of the continents
The geological record appears to show that ice ages start when the
continents are in positions which block or reduce the flow of warm water
from the equator to the poles and thus allow ice sheets to form. The ice
sheets increase the Earth's reflectivity and thus reduce the absorption
of solar radiation. With less radiation absorbed the atmosphere cools;
the cooling allows the ice sheets to grow, which further increases
reflectivity in a positive feedback loop. The ice age continues until
the reduction in weathering causes an increase in the greenhouse effect.
There are three known configurations of the continents which block or
reduce the flow of warm water from the equator to the poles:
* A continent sits on top of a pole, as Antarctica does today.
* A polar sea is almost land-locked, as the Arctic Ocean is today.
* A supercontinent covers most of the equator, as Rodinia did
during the Cryogenian period.
Since today's Earth has a continent over the South Pole and an almost
land-locked ocean over the North Pole, geologists believe that Earth
will continue to endure glacial periods in the geologically near future.
Some scientists believe that the Himalayas are a major factor in the
current ice age, because these mountains have increased Earth's total
rainfall and therefore the rate at which CO2 is washed out of the
atmosphere, decreasing the greenhouse effect.[34] The Himalayas'
formation started about 70 million years ago when the Indo-Australian
Plate collided with the Eurasian Plate, and the Himalayas are still
rising by about 5 mm per year because the Indo-Australian plate is still
moving at 67 mm/year. The history of the Himalayas broadly fits the
long-term decrease in Earth's average temperature since the mid-Eocene,
40 million years ago.
Other important aspects which contributed to ancient climate regimes are
the ocean currents, which are modified by continent position as well as
other factors. They have the ability to cool (e.g. aiding the creation
of Antarctic ice) and the ability to warm (e.g. giving the British Isles
a temperate as opposed to a boreal climate). The closing of the Isthmus
of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present
period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of
water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[36]
[edit] The Uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding Mountain Areas
above the Snowline
Matthias Kuhle's geological theory of Ice Age development was suggested
by the existence of an ice sheet covering the Tibetan plateau during the
Ice Ages (Last Glacial Maximum?). The plate-tectonic uplift of Tibet
past the snow-line has led to a c. 2.4 million km?? ice surface with a
70% greater albedo than the bare land surface. The reflection of energy
into space resulted in a global cooling, triggering the Pleistocene Ice
Age. Because this highland is at a subtropical latitude, with 4 to 5
times the insolation of high-latitude areas, what would be Earth's
strongest heating surface has turned into a cooling surface.
Kuhle explains the interglacial periods by the 100 000-year cycle of
radiation changes due to variations of the Earth's orbit. This
comparatively insignificant warming, when combined with the lowering of
the Nordic inland ice areas and Tibet due to the weight of the
superimposed ice-load, has led to the repeated complete thawing of the
inland ice areas. [37][38][39]
[edit] Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclic variations in
characteristics of the Earth's orbit around the sun. Each cycle has a
different length, so at some times their effects reinforce each other
and at other times they (partially) cancel each other.
It is very unlikely that the Milankovitch cycles can start or end an ice
age (series of glacial periods):
* Even when their effects reinforce each other they are not strong
enough.
* The "peaks" (effects reinforce each other) and "troughs" (effects
cancel each other) are much more regular and much more frequent than the
observed ice ages.
Past and future of daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on
the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude.
In contrast, there is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles
affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice
age. The present ice ages are the most studied and best understood,
particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by
ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for
temperature and ice volume. Within this period, the match of
glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milankovi?? orbital forcing
periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted. The
combined effects of the changing distance to the Sun, the precession of
the Earth's axis, and the changing tilt of the Earth's axis redistribute
the sunlight received by the Earth. Of particular importance are changes
in the tilt of the Earth's axis, which affect the intensity of seasons.
For example, the amount of solar influx in July at 65 degrees north
latitude varies by as much as 25% (from 450 W/m?? to 550 W/m??). It is
widely believed that ice sheets advance when summers become too cool to
melt all of the accumulated snowfall from the previous winter. Some
workers believe that the strength of the orbital forcing is too small to
trigger glaciations, but feedback mechanisms like CO2 may explain this
mismatch.
While Milankovitch forcing predicts that cyclic changes in the Earth's
orbital parameters can be expressed in the glaciation record, additional
explanations are necessary to explain which cycles are observed to be
most important in the timing of glacial???interglacial periods. In
particular, during the last 800,000 years, the dominant period of
glacial???interglacial oscillation has been 100,000 years, which
corresponds to changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity and orbital
inclination. Yet this is by far the weakest of the three frequencies
predicted by Milankovitch. During the period 3.0???0.8 million years ago,
the dominant pattern of glaciation corresponded to the 41,000-year
period of changes in Earth's obliquity (tilt of the axis). The reasons
for dominance of one frequency versus another are poorly understood and
an active area of current research, but the answer probably relates to
some form of resonance in the Earth's climate system.
The "traditional" Milankovitch explanation struggles to explain the
dominance of the 100,000-year cycle over the last 8 cycles. Richard A.
Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald [1] [2] [3] and others have pointed out
that those calculations are for a two-dimensional orbit of Earth but the
three-dimensional orbit also has a 100,000-year cycle of orbital
inclination. They proposed that these variations in orbital inclination
lead to variations in insolation, as the earth moves in and out of known
dust bands in the solar system. Although this is a different mechanism
to the traditional view, the "predicted" periods over the last 400,000
years are nearly the same. The Muller and MacDonald theory, in turn, has
been challenged by Jose Antonio Rial [4].
Another worker, William Ruddiman, has suggested a model that explains
the 100,000-year cycle by the modulating effect of eccentricity (weak
100,000-year cycle) on precession (23,000-year cycle) combined with
greenhouse gas feedbacks in the 41,000- and 23,000-year cycles. Yet
another theory has been advanced by Peter Huybers who argued that the
41,000-year cycle has always been dominant, but that the Earth has
entered a mode of climate behavior where only the second or third cycle
triggers an ice age. This would imply that the 100,000-year periodicity
is really an illusion created by averaging together cycles lasting
80,000 and 120,000 years. This theory is consistent with the existing
uncertainties in dating, but not widely accepted at present (Nature 434,
2005, [5]).
[edit] Variations in the Sun's energy output
There are at least two types of variation in the Sun's energy output:
* In the very long term, astrophysicists believe that the sun's
output increases by about 10% per billion (109) years. In about one
billion years the additional 10% will be enough to cause a runaway
greenhouse effect on Earth???rising temperatures produce more water
vapour, water vapour is a greenhouse gas (much stronger than CO2), the
temperature rises, more water vapour is produced, etc.[citation needed]
* Shorter-term variations, some possibly caused by hunting. Since
the Sun is huge, the effects of imbalances and negative feedback
processes take a long time to propagate through it, so these processes
overshoot and cause further imbalances, etc.???"long time" in this context
means thousands to millions of years.[citation needed]
The long-term increase in the Sun's output cannot be a cause of ice ages.
The best known shorter-term variations are sunspot cycles, especially
the Maunder minimum, which is associated with the coldest part of the
Little Ice Age. Like the Milankovitch cycles, sunspot cycles' effects
are too weak and too frequent to explain the start and end of ice ages
but very probably help to explain temperature variations within them.
[edit] Volcanism
Volcanic eruptions may have contributed to the inception and/or the end
of ice age periods. One suggested[who?] explanation of the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is that undersea volcanoes released
methane from clathrates and thus caused a large and rapid increase in
the greenhouse effect. There appears to be no geological evidence for
such eruptions at the right time, but this does not prove they did not
happen.
It is challenging to see how volcanism could cause an ice age, since its
cooling effects would have to be stronger than and outlast its warming
effects.[who?] This would require dust and aerosol clouds which would
stay in the upper atmosphere blocking the sun for thousands of years,
which seems very unlikely. Undersea volcanoes could not produce this
effect because the dust and aerosols would be absorbed by the sea before
they reached the atmosphere.
[edit] Recent glacial and interglacial phases
Northern hemisphere glaciation during the last ice ages. The set up of 3
to 4 km thick ice sheets caused a sea level lowering of about 120 m.
Main article: Timeline of glaciation
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion with:
Recent glacial and interglacial phases in other areas outside North America.
[edit] Glacial stages in North America
The major glacial stages of the current ice age in North America are the
Illinoian, Sangamonian and Wisconsin stages. The use of the Nebraskan,
Afton, Kansan, and Yarmouthian (Yarmouth) stages to subdivide the ice
age in North America have been discontinued by Quaternary geologists and
geomorphologists. These stages have all been merged into the
Pre-Illinoian Stage in the 1980s.[40][41][42]
During the most recent North American glaciation, during the latter part
of the Wisconsin Stage (26,000 to 13,300 years ago), ice sheets extended
to about 45 degrees north latitude. These sheets were 3 to 4 km thick.[41]
This Wisconsin glaciation left widespread impacts on the North American
landscape. The Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes were carved by ice
deepening old valleys. Most of the lakes in Minnesota and Wisconsin were
gouged out by glaciers and later filled with glacial meltwaters. The old
Teays River drainage system was radically altered and largely reshaped
into the Ohio River drainage system. Other rivers were dammed and
diverted to new channels, such as the Niagara, which formed a dramatic
waterfall and gorge, when the waterflow encountered a limestone
escarpment. Another similar waterfall, at the present Clark Reservation
State Park near Syracuse, New York, is now dry.
The area from Long Island to Nantucket was formed from glacial till, and
the plethora of lakes on the Canadian Shield in northern Canada can be
almost entirely attributed to the action of the ice. As the ice
retreated and the rock dust dried, winds carried the material hundreds
of miles, forming beds of loess many dozens of feet thick in the
Missouri Valley. Isostatic rebound continues to reshape the Great Lakes
and other areas formerly under the weight of the ice sheets.
The Driftless Zone, a portion of western and southwestern Wisconsin
along with parts of adjacent Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois, was not
covered by glaciers.
See also: Glacial history of Minnesota
[edit] Effects of glaciation
Scandinavia exhibits some of the typical effects of ice age glaciation
such as fjords and lakes.
See also: Glacial landforms
Although the last glacial period ended more than 8,000 years ago, its
effects can still be felt today. For example, the moving ice carved out
landscape in Canada, (See Canadian Arctic Archipelago) Greenland,
northern Eurasia and Antarctica. The erratic boulders, till, drumlins,
eskers, fjords, kettle lakes, moraines, cirques, horns, etc., are
typical features left behind by the glaciers.
The weight of the ice sheets was so great that they deformed the Earth's
crust and mantle. After the ice sheets melted, the ice-covered land
rebounded (see Post-glacial rebound). Due to the high viscosity of the
Earth, the flow of mantle rocks which controls the rebound process is
very slow ??? at a rate of about 1 cm/year near the center of rebound today.
During glaciation, water was taken from the oceans to form the ice at
high latitudes, thus global sea level drops by about 120 meters,
exposing the continental shelves and forming land-bridges between
land-masses for animals to migrate. During deglaciation, the melted
ice-water returned to the oceans, causing sea level to rise. This
process can cause sudden shifts in coastlines and hydration systems
resulting in newly submerged lands, emerging lands, collapsed ice dams
resulting in salination of lakes, new ice dams creating vast areas of
freshwater, and a general alteration in regional weather patterns on a
large but temporary scale. It can even cause temporary reglaciation.
This type of chaotic pattern of rapidly changing land, ice, saltwater
and freshwater has been proposed as the likely model for the Baltic and
Scandinavian regions, as well as much of central North America at the
end of the last glacial maximum, with the present-day coastlines only
being achieved in the last few millennia of prehistory. Also, the effect
of elevation on Scandinavia submerged a vast continental plain that had
existed under much of what is now the North Sea, connecting the British
Isles to Continental Europe.
The redistribution of ice-water on the surface of the Earth and the flow
of mantle rocks causes the gravitational field and the moment of inertia
of the Earth to change. Changes in the moment of inertia result in a
change in the rotational motion of the Earth (see Post-glacial rebound).
The weight of the redistributed surface mass loaded the lithosphere,
caused it to flexure and also induced stress within the Earth. The
presence of the glaciers generally suppressed the movement of faults
below (Johnston 1989, Wu & Hasegawa 1996, Turpeinen et al. 2008).
However, during deglaciation, the faults experience accelerated slip,
and earthquakes are triggered (see Post-glacial rebound). Earthquakes
triggered near the ice margin may in turn accelerate ice calving and may
account for the Heinrich events (Hunt & Malin 1998). As more ice is
removed near the ice margin, more intraplate earthquakes are induced and
this positive feedback may explain the fast collapse of ice sheets.
[edit] See also
* Geology
* International Union for Quaternary Research
* Irish Sea Glacier
* Late Glacial Maximum
* Little ice age
* Post-glacial rebound
* Timeline of glaciation
* Global cooling
[edit] References
1. ^ J. Imbrie and K.P.Imbrie, Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery (Short
Hills NJ: Enslow Publishers) 1979.
2. ^ J. Gribbin, Future weather (New York: Penguin) 1982.
3. ^ R??mis, Fr??d??ric et Testus, Laurent. "Mais comment s?????coule donc
un glacier ? Aper??u historique". C. R. Geoscience 338 (2006) and
republished online by Science direct. pp. 368???385. Accessed 22 June
2009. Note: p.374
4. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte [The
Discovery of the Ice Ages. International Reception and Consequences for
the Understanding of climate history], Basel 2008, ISBN
978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 69.
5. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 106 et seqq.
6. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 189.
7. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 111 and 189.
8. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 111.
9. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 59.
10. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 84 and 86.
11. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 118-119.
12. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 121 et seqq.
13. ^ Davies, Gordon L.: The Earth in Decay. A History of British
Geomorphology 1578-1878, London 1969, p. 267f. Cunningham, Frank F.:
Forbes, James David Forbes. Pioneer Scottish Glaciologist, Edinburgh
1990, p. 15.
14. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 179 et seqq.
15. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 136-137.
16. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 188-191.
17. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 194-196.
18. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 207-210.
19. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 213.
20. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 216-217.
21. ^ Agassiz, Louis: Etudes sur les glaciers. Ouvrage accompagn??
d'un atlas de 32 planches, Neuch??tel, 1840.
22. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 223-224. De Charpentier, Jean:
Essais sur les glaciers et sur le terrain erratique du bassin du Rh??ne,
Lausanne 1841.
23. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 220-223.
24. ^ Kr??ger, Tobias: Die Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. Internationale
Rezeption und Konsequenzen f??r das Verst??ndnis der Klimageschichte,
Basel 2008, ISBN 978-3-7965-2439-4, p. 540-542.
25. ^ How are past temperatures determined from an ice core?,
Scientific American, September 20, 2004
26. ^ Neoproterozoic 'snowball Earth' simulations with a coupled
climate/ice-sheet model.
27. ^ Cryogenian Snowballs
28. ^ EPICA community members (2004-06-10). "Eight glacial cycles
from an Antarctic ice core" (PDF). Nature 429: 623.
doi:10.1038/nature02599.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf.
29. ^ "CLIMATE: An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?". Science.
2002. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5585/1287.
Retrieved 2007-03-11.
30. ^ "Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels".
ScienceDaily. 2007.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm. Retrieved
2008-02-28.
31. ^ Did Early Climate Impact Divert a New Glacial Age? Newswise,
Retrieved on December 17, 2008.
32. ^ Ewing, Maurice and William L. Donn. 1956. A Theory of Ice Ages.
Science 123:1061-6, Retrieved on 2009-02-24
33. ^ Ruddiman, W.F. and J.E. Kutzbach. 1991. Plateau Uplift and
Climate Change. Scientific American 264:66-74
34. ^ a b Raymo, M.E., W.F. Ruddiman, and P.N. Froelich (1988)
Influence of late Cenozoic mountain building on ocean geochemical
cycles. Geology, v. 16, p. 649-653.
35. ^ Peter U. Clark, Arthur S. Dyke, Jeremy D. Shakun, Anders E.
Carlson, Jorie Clark, Barbara Wohlfarth, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Steven W.
Hostetler, and A. Marshall McCabe. 2009. The Last Glacial Maximum,
Science 325 (5941), 710. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1172873]
36. ^ We are all Panamanians - formation of Isthmus of Panama may
have started a series of climatic changes that led to evolution of hominids
37. ^ Kuhle, M.(1988): The Pleistocene Glaciation of Tibet and the
Onset of Ice Ages- An Autocycle Hypothesis. GeoJournal 17 (4, Tibet and
High-Asia. Results of the Sino-German Joint Expeditions (I), 581-596.
38. ^ Kuhle, M. (2004): The High Glacial (Last Ice Age and LGM) ice
cover in High and Central Asia. Development in Quaternary Science 2c
(Quaternary Glaciation - Extent and Chronology, Part III: South America,
Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Eds: Ehlers, J.; Gibbard, P.L.),
175-199. (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam)
39. ^ Kuhle, M. (2007): The Past Ice Stream Network in the Himalayas
and the Tibetan Ice Sheet during the Last Glacial Period and its
glacial-isostatic, eustatic and climatic consequences. Tectonophysics
445 (1-2), 116-144
40. ^ Hallberg, G.R., 1986, Pre-Wisconsin glacial stratigraphy of the
Central Plains region in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.
Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 5, pp. 11-15.
41. ^ a b Richmond, G.M. and D.S. Fullerton, 1986, Summation of
Quaternary glaciations in the United States of America. Quaternary
Science Reviews. vol. 5, pp. 183-196.
42. ^ Gibbard, P.L., S. Boreham, K.M. Cohen and A. Moscariello, 2007,
Global chronostratigraphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million
years v. 2007b., jpg version 844 KB. Subcommission on Quaternary
Stratigraphy, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, England
[edit] External links
Search Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Ice age
* Cracking the Ice Age from PBS
*
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/
* Overview of the Uplift-Weathering Hypothesis
Funny how I didn't see Singer's name in there.
Anthony Marsh
No. I know that the professional deniers do not have any answers. They
are paid big bucks by polluters to discredit global warming.
> Mark
>
markmark
No, I did not say that Anthony. The very title of his book makes it
obvious that he knows very well that global warming exists. It's just
as real as global cooling is. Global warming is real, it's the man-
made part that is a hoax.
Mark
markmark
You mean glaciers grow during ice ages and retreat during times of
warming? Imagine that!
Mark
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 13, 12:32 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 10:43 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 5:11 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 11, 12:35 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Peter,
>>
>>>>>> Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
>>>>>> credit rating will be downgraded.
>>
>>>>> So will the currency. The exchange rate for the dollar is a reflection
>>>>> of the collective international credit rating.
>>
>>>>>> It would be lovely to hear a politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.
>>
>>>>> Why would that be lovely, when deficit spending is inherently
>>>>> irresponsible? So you think it fair that politicians over spend and the
>>>>> taxpayer gets screwed with paying the bill? That is like some guy having a
>>>>> big party at a restaurant and the next day sending the tab to all the
>>>>> neighbors on his street.
>>
>>>>> There are three basic meanings to the latin root word for tax, one is
>>>>> neutral and the other two are negative. What it comes down to is the
>>>>> politicians who raise taxes increase the burden on our economy, society,
>>
>>>> Perhaps we are more concerned with the Republicans deficit spend to
>>>> wage wars all over the place and leave no money for infrastructure
>>>> repair or social programs here. But I am sure that spending is just
>>>> fine with you.
>>
>>>> JB
>>
>>> Hmmmm.... I think I just saw Obama announcing the sending of 30,000
>>> more troops to Afghanistan.
>>
>>> Last time I looked he was of the Democratic party persuasion.
>>
>>> Goes to show you-- war is non-partisan.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Not really, he is just cleaning up another Republican mess.
>>
>> JB
>
> Bulls**t. He is cleaning up what Clinton missed in the terrorists knocking
> at our doors back in the 90s, ala, 9/11. Bush just happened to be the
> elected president at the time.
>
More revisionist history from the neocons. Maybe you aren't old enough to
remember, but 9/11 happened in 2001 under Bush's watch. He is the
President who allowed it to happen.
If you want to point to a President who didn't finish the job then look no
farther back than George Bush, who won the first Gulf War and then said
don't bother taking Baghdad.
And if you go even farther back, it was your hero Ronald Reagan who
support what later became the Taliban and allowed them to take over
Afghanistan. So again a Democrat is cleaning up the mess left over by a
Republican.
> How many major terrorist attacks were there under Clinton's watch?
>
> 1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
> 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
Nice, so you blame Oklahoma City on Clinton?
> 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
> 1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
> 2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
>
> You think terrorism just started the day Bush was elected, or on Monday
> Sept. 10th, 2001?
>
Do you think it ended the moment Bush was elected?
Can you even admit that Obama has prevented acts of terrorism?
> As I said -- and you don't listen -- war is non-partisan, but still you
> throw your politics at it thinking it's any one person's, or party's,
> fault.
>
> Was WWII FDR's fault? If you say yes you lose because FDR was Democrat. If
> you say no you lose because FDR was POTUS during the years of the Nazi
> war-machine buildup in Europe.
>
FDR didn't start WWII. Bush started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
> So, do yourself and everyone else a favor and put a lid on your cheap-
> shot political jabs.
>
>
Put a lid on your revisionist history.
>
>
Bud
You`re a polluter, do you pay them?
These environmental scientists have been funded well to scare the
public, they aren`t about to come clean that they`ve been crying "wolf",
they might have to get real jobs. They need to keep this liberal myth
alive.
> > Mark
bigdog
coalition to drive Hussein out of Kuwait. He did not have coalition
support to take Baghdad and oust Hussein. He did what he had been
mandated to do by the UN and went no further. The mission was clearly
spelled out in advance and that mission did not included a regime
change in Irag.
> And if you go even farther back, it was your hero Ronald Reagan who
> support what later became the Taliban and allowed them to take over
> Afghanistan. So again a Democrat is cleaning up the mess left over by a
> Republican.
>
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We allied with the Afghan forces
to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It wasn't the first time a
former ally has turned on us. It won't be the last.
> > How many major terrorist attacks were there under Clinton's watch?
>
> > 1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
> > 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
>
> Nice, so you blame Oklahoma City on Clinton?
>
> > 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
> > 1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
> > 2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
>
> > You think terrorism just started the day Bush was elected, or on Monday
> > Sept. 10th, 2001?
>
> Do you think it ended the moment Bush was elected?
> Can you even admit that Obama has prevented acts of terrorism?
>
So far.
> > As I said -- and you don't listen -- war is non-partisan, but still you
> > throw your politics at it thinking it's any one person's, or party's,
> > fault.
>
> > Was WWII FDR's fault? If you say yes you lose because FDR was Democrat. If
> > you say no you lose because FDR was POTUS during the years of the Nazi
> > war-machine buildup in Europe.
>
> FDR didn't start WWII. Bush started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
>
Irag yes. The forces who attacked us on 9/11 were based in
Afghanistan. They started it.
> > So, do yourself and everyone else a favor and put a lid on your cheap-
> > shot political jabs.
>
> Put a lid on your revisionist history.
>
If we put a lid on revisionist history, the CTs would be out of
business.
>
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Climate change research is funded largely by government grants. If
they were to conclude that man made global warming was not a problem,
the funding would be cut off. They have a vested interest in keeping
the myth alive.
Anthony Marsh
Oh, so that's YOUR conspiracy theory. Like the Dolan/McAdams conspiracy
theory that it is the KGB which is behind all these JFK conspiracy
theories. You guys have your own kooky conspiracy theories.
>
>>> Mark
>
>
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Dec 11, 12:21=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
>> >and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of thos=
>e
>> >businesses to deny that they played any part in it.
>>
>> Read the article.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp
>>
>
>The article says: "The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that
>catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any
>foundation."
>Seems though that a lot of people are taking it for granted that they
>do reveal such a thing.
Not really.
What the e-mails do is damage the myth that "science" is the pristine
search for the truth, unsullen by ideology, careerism and greed.
Or to put it another way, they debunk the authority of *scientists*
although not *science.*
Thus people who say there is AGW merely because the scientists say so
are on weak ground.
None of which, of course, affects a discussion of the actual evidence.
Except that some of the "evidence" -- time series data on temperatures
-- is thrown into doubt, since any trend lines you have seen are not
raw temperature data, but data massaged in a variety of ways.
I assume you'll agree that these particular scientists, at least, were
acting badly.
claviger
> On Dec 11, 12:35 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter,
>
> > > Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
> > > credit rating will be downgraded.
>
> > So will the currency. The exchange rate for the dollar is a reflection
> > of the collective international credit rating.
>
> > > It would be lovely to hear a politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.
>
> > Why would that be lovely, when deficit spending is inherently
> > irresponsible? So you think it fair that politicians over spend and the
> > taxpayer gets screwed with paying the bill? That is like some guy having a
> > big party at a restaurant and the next day sending the tab to all the
> > neighbors on his street.
>
> > There are three basic meanings to the latin root word for tax, one is
> > neutral and the other two are negative. What it comes down to is the
> > politicians who raise taxes increase the burden on our economy, society,
>
> Perhaps we are more concerned with the Republicans deficit spend to
> wage wars all over the place and leave no money for infrastructure
> repair or social programs here. But I am sure that spending is just
> fine with you.
>
> JB
Not at all. If RR had been faced with this situation I think he would have
handled it like the Libya problem. I don't think he would have put boots
on the ground to the extent W did. I agree with historians and military
experts who point out that Saddam Hussein was the gatekeeper who kept Iran
out of the Middle East. With SH gone and Iraq in the process of rebuilding
an army, Iran has taken this opportunity to effectively destabilize
Lebanon and Gaza. As a religious fanatic Ahmadinejad appears to be
creating a fuse using the Israeli conflict, to ignite the ultimate
showdown with Israel, and if need be, the US and NATO. This is exactly
what John Brown did to ignite the US Civil War. The bad news is it worked,
causing the bloodiest conflict in US history.
Anthony Marsh
Wow, isn't that amazing? Why do glaciers retreat when we should be
approaching another ice age?
I just saw Pat Buchanan claim that global warming is caused by sun spots.
Do you also believe that? You have yet to answer if it even exists or what
causes it.
> Mark
>
Anthony Marsh
OH, ok. So you do agree with him that global warming does exist?
As an analogy look at some cases of a natural phenomenon run amok. Like
killer bees or kudzu or infestations by alien species destroying the
native species. All of those are natural, but were triggered by some
human activity. Maybe a deliberate attempt to cause something, maybe a
mistaken release. But the migration could not have happened without some
humans being the vector. A flood can be a natural process, but not when
someone blows up the dam on purpose.
> Mark
>
Sandy McCroskey
> On 11 Dec 2009 15:21:40 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
>
> >On Dec 11, 12:21=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
> >> >and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of thos=
> >e
> >> >businesses to deny that they played any part in it.
>
> >> Read the article.
>
>
>
>
> >The article says: "The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that
> >catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any
> >foundation."
> >Seems though that a lot of people are taking it for granted that they
> >do reveal such a thing.
>
> Not really.
>
> What the e-mails do is damage the myth that "science" is the pristine
> search for the truth, unsullen by ideology, careerism and greed.
>
> Or to put it another way, they debunk the authority of *scientists*
> although not *science.*
>
> Thus people who say there is AGW merely because the scientists say so
> are on weak ground.
>
> None of which, of course, affects a discussion of the actual evidence.
>
> Except that some of the "evidence" -- time series data on temperatures
> -- is thrown into doubt, since any trend lines you have seen are not
> raw temperature data, but data massaged in a variety of ways.
>
> I assume you'll agree that these particular scientists, at least, were
> acting badly.
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Yes, indeed, "particular scientists" were acting badly.
bigdog
hardly news. What the global warming alarmists do is trumpet every
short term temperature rise as evidence of long term climate change.
In the 1930s, climate changes helped bring about the dust bowl. From
1940-1980, we went through a period of global cooling. Near the end of
that cycle, the eastern half of the United States experienced one of
the most brutally cold winters on record. This prompted Time magazine
to run a cover story in early 1977 in which some of the leading
scientists of the day were speculating that we might be on the verge
of the next ice age. Then in 1980, the trend reversed itself and we
went through two decades of rising temperatures after which the trend
reversed again and we have been in a cooling period, but the alarmists
would rather not talk about that. It doesn't help their cause. It's
better to shield the public from that sort of inconvenient
information.
jas
> On Dec 13, 10:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
MARSH SAID: Put a lid on your revisionist history.
>
BIGDOG SAID: If we put a lid on revisionist history, the CTs would be
out of
> business.
BINGO!
Thank you.
Bigdog puts the capper on it once again.
>
>
>
>
jas
>
> More revisionist history from the neocons. Maybe you aren't old enough to
> remember, but 9/11 happened in 2001 under Bush's watch. He is the
> President who allowed it to happen.
So, let me get this straight Professor Marsh: you're saying Clinton's
administration had nothing to do with stopping the ongoing al Qaeda
plans to attack the WTC, something they wanted to finish since the
first attack in 1993?
Man you are so blinded by your politics you don't know WHAT is going
on in the world.
>
> If you want to point to a President who didn't finish the job then look no
> farther back than George Bush, who won the first Gulf War and then said
> don't bother taking Baghdad.
I can't believe I'm saying this but: I agree with you on this.
>
> And if you go even farther back, it was your hero Ronald Reagan who
> support what later became the Taliban and allowed them to take over
> Afghanistan. So again a Democrat is cleaning up the mess left over by a
> Republican.
Do you really think Reagan was privy to that from the get-go? I
don't.
Our friendly neighborhood buddies at the CIA Gust Avrakotos and the
Special Activities Division were responsible for its initial design
and implementation. Reagan was persuaded to let it happen.
Sort of like back in the day with Kennedy and the CIA's fun times with
Castro, et al.
>
> > How many major terrorist attacks were there under Clinton's watch?
>
> > 1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
> > 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
>
> Nice, so you blame Oklahoma City on Clinton?
Well, using your own "under his watch" blaming as you so emphatically
do with Bush and 9/11--
YES, DEFINITELY.
It's called DOMESTIC terrorism, just as deadly and effective as al
Qaeda.
>
> > 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
> > 1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
> > 2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
>
> > You think terrorism just started the day Bush was elected, or on Monday
> > Sept. 10th, 2001?
>
> Do you think it ended the moment Bush was elected?
Huh? Wha the heck does this mean? Trying to be witty?
You have a special talent for making absolutely no sense sometimes.
> Can you even admit that Obama has prevented acts of terrorism?
Oh, you mean the Ft. Hood massacre?
>
> > As I said -- and you don't listen -- war is non-partisan, but still you
> > throw your politics at it thinking it's any one person's, or party's,
> > fault.
>
> > Was WWII FDR's fault? If you say yes you lose because FDR was Democrat. If
> > you say no you lose because FDR was POTUS during the years of the Nazi
> > war-machine buildup in Europe.
>
> FDR didn't start WWII. Bush started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Pay attention to the point. I was rebutting Blubaugh's cheap
Republican jab.
It can be argued that FDR -- a Democrat -- ALLOWED the Nazi buildup,
the same argument I'm using to illustrate the Clinton years -- a
Democrat -- prior to 9/11.
And, you think Pearl Harbor under FDR's watch was not terrorism? You
don't think FDR had the same dilemma in 1941 as Bush did after 9/11??
If you don't, you don't know or understand history in the least bit.
Maybe you might try enrolling in some history classes at your local
community college.
Terrorism is just the new word for "attack."
>
> > So, do yourself and everyone else a favor and put a lid on your cheap-
> > shot political jabs.
>
> Put a lid on your revisionist history.
Put a lid on your remarks that make no sense.
Bottom line, and I'll say it again for your benefit -- and please read
it and try to comprehend instead of just lashing back -- one cannot
blame any war on any political party.
War is non-partisan.
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 12, 6:11 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 12:35 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Peter,
>>
>>>> Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
>>>> credit rating will be downgraded.
>>
>>> So will the currency. The exchange rate for the dollar is a reflection
>>> of the collective international credit rating.
>>
>>>> It would be lovely to hear a politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.
>>
>>> Why would that be lovely, when deficit spending is inherently
>>> irresponsible? So you think it fair that politicians over spend and the
>>> taxpayer gets screwed with paying the bill? That is like some guy having a
>>> big party at a restaurant and the next day sending the tab to all the
>>> neighbors on his street.
>>
>>> There are three basic meanings to the latin root word for tax, one is
>>> neutral and the other two are negative. What it comes down to is the
>>> politicians who raise taxes increase the burden on our economy, society,
>>
>> Perhaps we are more concerned with the Republicans deficit spend to
>> wage wars all over the place and leave no money for infrastructure
>> repair or social programs here. But I am sure that spending is just
>> fine with you.
>>
>> JB
>
> Not at all. If RR had been faced with this situation I think he would have
> handled it like the Libya problem. I don't think he would have put boots
Why not look at what Ronald Reagan actually did?
He was an equal opportunity terrorist. He armed both sides. He gave the
Iranians Hawk missiles as part of a behind-the-back deal to get the
hostages released. Then he gave Saddam Hussein satellite intelligence,
engineering equipment, financing and biological weapons to use against
Iran. He did not want either side to win. He wanted them to destroy each
other.
The oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer. Get your enemies to
fight each other so you don't have to.
> on the ground to the extent W did. I agree with historians and military
> experts who point out that Saddam Hussein was the gatekeeper who kept Iran
> out of the Middle East. With SH gone and Iraq in the process of rebuilding
> an army, Iran has taken this opportunity to effectively destabilize
> Lebanon and Gaza. As a religious fanatic Ahmadinejad appears to be
> creating a fuse using the Israeli conflict, to ignite the ultimate
> showdown with Israel, and if need be, the US and NATO. This is exactly
> what John Brown did to ignite the US Civil War. The bad news is it worked,
> causing the bloodiest conflict in US history.
Let me get this straight. You think that John Brown's raid was the
immediate precipitating event which CAUSED the US Civil War?
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 Dec 2009 15:21:40 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 12:21=A0am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
>>>> and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of thos=
>> e
>>>> businesses to deny that they played any part in it.
>>>
>>> Read the article.
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp
>
>>>
>>
>> The article says: "The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that
>> catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any
>> foundation."
>
>> Seems though that a lot of people are taking it for granted that they
>> do reveal such a thing.
>
>
> Not really.
>
> What the e-mails do is damage the myth that "science" is the pristine
> search for the truth, unsullen by ideology, careerism and greed.
>
> Or to put it another way, they debunk the authority of *scientists*
> although not *science.*
>
> Thus people who say there is AGW merely because the scientists say so
> are on weak ground.
>
As usual, you are not making yourself clear. Stop being so evasive. Just
state clearly and openly if you believe that global warming exists. If you
do, then do you think it is mainly natural, exclusively natural, mainly
man made or exclusively man made?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Global warming existed up until about 1999. The temperatures have
been stable since then, so it appears to have gone away.
I don't know how much was man-made, but I suepect very little.
The odds certainly don't justify trillions of spending and draconian
regulation to stop something that may not even exist.
I remember too many environmental scares from the past, Tony. "Silent
Spring" (the DDT hysteria killed millions of people in Africa), the
"Population Bomb," the "Limits to Growth," and the "New Ice Age."
Anthony Marsh
I guess you could say that about any research. Astronomy is funded largely
by government grants. So they have a vested interest in making new
discoveries and coming up with new theories every year. The Big Bang is
just a tax dodge.
Anthony Marsh
If you think that the US didn't control the agenda and the UN then you
have a screw loose. They did what we told them to do.
>
>> And if you go even farther back, it was your hero Ronald Reagan who
>> support what later became the Taliban and allowed them to take over
>> Afghanistan. So again a Democrat is cleaning up the mess left over by a
>> Republican.
>>
> The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We allied with the Afghan forces
> to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It wasn't the first time a
> former ally has turned on us. It won't be the last.
>
Fine, but call a spade a spade. Call a terrorist a terrorist and admit
that you are supporting terrorism. Don't cloak it in patriotism and say,
"those aren't terrorists, they're freedom fighters."
And then don't lie as Reagan did while supplying weapons to our enemies.
>>> How many major terrorist attacks were there under Clinton's watch?
>>
>>> 1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
>>> 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
>>
>> Nice, so you blame Oklahoma City on Clinton?
>>
>>> 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
>>> 1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
>>> 2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
>>
>>> You think terrorism just started the day Bush was elected, or on Monday
>>> Sept. 10th, 2001?
>>
>> Do you think it ended the moment Bush was elected?
>> Can you even admit that Obama has prevented acts of terrorism?
>>
> So far.
>
>>> As I said -- and you don't listen -- war is non-partisan, but still you
>>> throw your politics at it thinking it's any one person's, or party's,
>>> fault.
>>
>>> Was WWII FDR's fault? If you say yes you lose because FDR was Democrat. If
>>> you say no you lose because FDR was POTUS during the years of the Nazi
>>> war-machine buildup in Europe.
>>
>> FDR didn't start WWII. Bush started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
>>
> Irag yes. The forces who attacked us on 9/11 were based in
> Afghanistan. They started it.
>
The country of Afghanistan didn't attack us. Ever hear of the Barbary
Coast pirates?
John Blubaugh
> On 14 Dec 2009 19:51:47 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 12/14/2009 1:32 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 11 Dec 2009 15:21:40 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
>
> >>> On Dec 11, 12:21=A0am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
> >>>>> and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of thos=
> >>> e
> >>>>> businesses to deny that they played any part in it.
>
> >>>> Read the article.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suppose that is why there is now a Northwest passage in the Artic
that had been frozen for hundreds of thousands of year?
JB
bigdog
We controlled it to the extent that if we had wanted to unilaterally go to
Baghdad and oust Hussein, we had the power to do that. Bush 41, however,
didn't want to go it alone. He wanted to hold the coalition support
together. The coalition, which included a number of Muslim countries,
wanted us to throw Hussein out of Kuwait. They would not have supported
the US overthrowing a Middle East government, no matter who was in charge
of that. They were as opposed to us using our muscle to overthrow Iraq as
the were to Hussein taking over Kuwait. The coalition Bush worked so hard
put together before the start of hostilities would have a crumbled if we
had sent our tanks up the road to Baghdad. That's why W. Bush didn't enjoy
the same support from the Arab nations for the second Gulf War as he
father had for the first one.
> > business.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 13, 8:04 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> More revisionist history from the neocons. Maybe you aren't old enough to
>> remember, but 9/11 happened in 2001 under Bush's watch. He is the
>> President who allowed it to happen.
>
> So, let me get this straight Professor Marsh: you're saying Clinton's
> administration had nothing to do with stopping the ongoing al Qaeda
> plans to attack the WTC, something they wanted to finish since the
> first attack in 1993?
>
Get this straight. Clinton was out of office after Jan. 20, 2001 and Bush
was in charge. That is when the final preparations for 9/11 took place,
under Bush's watch. The attack had been in the planning phase for 7 years.
It went into the final staging phase once Bush came into office. I am not
one who thinks that Bush knew about it and wanted it. But I am happy to
make fun of the right-wingers that blame everything on Liberals and ignore
the fact that the worst terrorist attack happened under Bush.
> Man you are so blinded by your politics you don't know WHAT is going
> on in the world.
>
You're so clueless than you don't realize that 9/11 happened while the
neocons were in power.
>>
>> If you want to point to a President who didn't finish the job then look no
>> farther back than George Bush, who won the first Gulf War and then said
>> don't bother taking Baghdad.
>
> I can't believe I'm saying this but: I agree with you on this.
>
>>
>> And if you go even farther back, it was your hero Ronald Reagan who
>> support what later became the Taliban and allowed them to take over
>> Afghanistan. So again a Democrat is cleaning up the mess left over by a
>> Republican.
>
> Do you really think Reagan was privy to that from the get-go? I
> don't.
>
Reagan privy? He had them in the oval office!
> Our friendly neighborhood buddies at the CIA Gust Avrakotos and the
> Special Activities Division were responsible for its initial design
> and implementation. Reagan was persuaded to let it happen.
>
Unintended consequence. Situational ethics.
> Sort of like back in the day with Kennedy and the CIA's fun times with
> Castro, et al.
>
After the Bay of Pigs and the Castro plots why would anyone in their
right mind trust the CIA to do anything right?
>
>>
>>> How many major terrorist attacks were there under Clinton's watch?
>>
>>> 1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
>>> 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
>>
>> Nice, so you blame Oklahoma City on Clinton?
>
> Well, using your own "under his watch" blaming as you so emphatically
> do with Bush and 9/11--
>
"Under his watch" is just to make fun of your blaming Liberals for
terrorist attacks.
> YES, DEFINITELY.
>
> It's called DOMESTIC terrorism, just as deadly and effective as al
> Qaeda.
>
Ok, just wanted to be sure that you really said you blame Clinton for
Oklahoma City. Just how did he do it?
>>
>>> 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
>>> 1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
>>> 2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
>>
>>> You think terrorism just started the day Bush was elected, or on Monday
>>> Sept. 10th, 2001?
>>
>> Do you think it ended the moment Bush was elected?
>
> Huh? Wha the heck does this mean? Trying to be witty?
>
> You have a special talent for making absolutely no sense sometimes.
>
>
>> Can you even admit that Obama has prevented acts of terrorism?
>
> Oh, you mean the Ft. Hood massacre?
>
That's ok. You can think it was a terrorist plot if you wish. But not
everyone will agree with your definition. Some see it like going postal or
fragging.
>>
>>> As I said -- and you don't listen -- war is non-partisan, but still you
>>> throw your politics at it thinking it's any one person's, or party's,
>>> fault.
>>
>>> Was WWII FDR's fault? If you say yes you lose because FDR was Democrat. If
>>> you say no you lose because FDR was POTUS during the years of the Nazi
>>> war-machine buildup in Europe.
>>
>> FDR didn't start WWII. Bush started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
>
> Pay attention to the point. I was rebutting Blubaugh's cheap
> Republican jab.
His point is correct, that many times Liberal Democrats have to clean up
the mess left by conservative Republicans.
>
> It can be argued that FDR -- a Democrat -- ALLOWED the Nazi buildup,
> the same argument I'm using to illustrate the Clinton years -- a
> Democrat -- prior to 9/11.
>
No, it can't be argued.
As far as 9/11 goes Clinton had ample opportunities to take action
against al Qaeda and did. But he was hampered by bad intelligence.
> And, you think Pearl Harbor under FDR's watch was not terrorism? You
> don't think FDR had the same dilemma in 1941 as Bush did after 9/11??
>
No, Pearl Harbor was not terrorism. It was an act of war by one country
against another country. Dilemma? I don't see a dilemma. Both were a
trigger. Both were provoked by US intelligence to justify the US going to
war.
> If you don't, you don't know or understand history in the least bit.
> Maybe you might try enrolling in some history classes at your local
> community college.
>
Nice try. I study history every day.
> Terrorism is just the new word for "attack."
>
Wrong. Terrorism has a specific definition.
>>
>>> So, do yourself and everyone else a favor and put a lid on your cheap-
>>> shot political jabs.
>>
>> Put a lid on your revisionist history.
>
> Put a lid on your remarks that make no sense.
>
> Bottom line, and I'll say it again for your benefit -- and please read
> it and try to comprehend instead of just lashing back -- one cannot
> blame any war on any political party.
>
> War is non-partisan.
>
In both cases the resolutions had bi-partisan support, nearly unanimous.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
markmark
Who said we're approaching another ice age? Yes the global temperature has
leveled off, or slightly dropped over the last ten years, but who knows
what it will be 50 years from now? And I most certainly have stated that
global warming has existed in the 20th Century. But it has happened
before, many hundreds of years ago, and will happen again.
Mark
Anthony Marsh
Not the same thing. Daily temperatures rise and fall with seasonal changes
in sunlight. Neither of those have anything to do with global warming.
Sunspot activity has a cycle of about 11 years. Global warming is a long
term trend. Yes, sunspot activity can affect weather over short periods of
time.
One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a
period of sunspot inactivity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of
sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. Sunspots were measured
during this timeframe, although the more detailed, daily measurements
began in 1749. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during
the Maunder Minimum. So the question remains, do solar minimums help to
create periods of cooler than normal weather, and do solar maximums help
to cause drought over sections of Earth? This question is not easily
answered due to the immensely complex interaction between our atmosphere,
land and oceans. In addition, there is evidence that some of the major
ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from
its "average" 23.5 degrees tilt on its axis. The Earth has tilted
anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. The number of
sunspots alone does not alter the overall solar emissions much at all.
However, the increased/decreased magnetic activity which accompanies
sunspot maxima/minima directly influences the amount of ultraviolet
radiation which moves through the upper atmosphere.
> hardly news. What the global warming alarmists do is trumpet every
> short term temperature rise as evidence of long term climate change.
Show where they say that a change from one year to the next predicts the
trend for the next 100,000 years.
> In the 1930s, climate changes helped bring about the dust bowl. From
Sure. And that was the ONLY cause? No human activity contributed to the
problem? Methinks you have some reading to do.
> 1940-1980, we went through a period of global cooling. Near the end of
> that cycle, the eastern half of the United States experienced one of
> the most brutally cold winters on record. This prompted Time magazine
> to run a cover story in early 1977 in which some of the leading
> scientists of the day were speculating that we might be on the verge
> of the next ice age. Then in 1980, the trend reversed itself and we
Speculating? The ice core and other data are clear that there are long and
short term cycles and we are heading into another Ice Age. How soon we get
there and whether your attempts at global warming can mitigate the effects
are not yet know with any certainty.
> went through two decades of rising temperatures after which the trend
> reversed again and we have been in a cooling period, but the alarmists
> would rather not talk about that. It doesn't help their cause. It's
> better to shield the public from that sort of inconvenient
> information.
>
Tell me that you can look at the photos of the mountain peaks and not
notice that the glaciers have melted.
Anthony Marsh
Great, so your story is that the glaciers have not kept melting since 1999
and you're sticking to that no matter how many photos show the melting.
> I don't know how much was man-made, but I suepect very little.
>
> The odds certainly don't justify trillions of spending and draconian
> regulation to stop something that may not even exist.
>
Maybe we need the trillions of spending and draconian regulation anyway.
> I remember too many environmental scares from the past, Tony. "Silent
> Spring" (the DDT hysteria killed millions of people in Africa), the
> "Population Bomb," the "Limits to Growth," and the "New Ice Age."
>
Prophesies don't have to come true if we take action to prevent them.