"Global"-warming myths, Re: Fondly Fahrenheit
Peter D. Tillman
Alexey Romanov <alex...@mail.ru> wrote:
> >>Same in Moscow, until a few days ago. We clearly need more global warming.
> >
> > Trouble is, global warming doesn't produce merely *warm* weather.
> > It produces more violent weather. In terms of Russian winters,
> > that will probably mean more and nastier blizzards.
>
> I know that this is the general effect, but so far we have been getting
> warmer winters.
We don't actually "know" this at all -- this is a propaganda prediction
of the Al Gore Hot-Air Machine... <g> So far, the bulk of "global"
warming is showing up at high latitudes, much to the delight of
residents there. Greenland is getting green again!
While paleo-storm-intensity isn't particularly easy to determine, I know
of no evidence that previous warm epochs have been particularly stormy.
And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
-- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Consulting Geologist
Paul F. Dietz
> So far, the bulk of "global"
> warming is showing up at high latitudes,
Do realize that models of global warming predict just this pattern.
Paul
No 33 Secretary
news:dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net:
Some of them. Others, equally credible, predict the opposite. And
every other possible scenario, as well. Is global warming still going
to trigger a new ice age?
--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."
Terry Austin
ncw...@hotmail.com
And of course, it is a pure con-incidence that there have recently been
tornados in Germany - something that was unheard of a few years ago.
Cheers,
Nigel.
Peter D. Tillman
No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in
> news:dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net:
>
> > Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> >
> >> So far, the bulk of "global"
> >> warming is showing up at high latitudes,
> >
> > Do realize that models of global warming predict just this pattern.
> >
> Some of them. Others, equally credible, predict the opposite.
Well, less credible *now*.... <G>
> And
> every other possible scenario, as well. Is global warming still going
> to trigger a new ice age?
As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway that
civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age has some
professional support these days.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
No 33 Secretary
news:Tillman-8ACA0C...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net
:
> In article <Xns98A05B96084...@216.168.3.64>,
> No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in
>> news:dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net:
>>
>> > Peter D. Tillman wrote:
>> >
>> >> So far, the bulk of "global"
>> >> warming is showing up at high latitudes,
>> >
>> > Do realize that models of global warming predict just this
>> > pattern.
>> >
>> Some of them. Others, equally credible, predict the opposite.
>
> Well, less credible *now*.... <G>
Yeah, but that'll change - again - next week, with yet another new
revelation.
>
>> And
>> every other possible scenario, as well. Is global warming still
>> going to trigger a new ice age?
>
> As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway that
> civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age
> has some professional support these days.
It has for at least 30 years.
Wayne Throop
:: civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age has
:: some professional support these days.
: It has for at least 30 years.
OK. So, assume heroic human CO2 production has saved the world from ice.
Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that we're being a bit overenthuseastic
in our heroism here, and really ought to cut back a tad? Just a tad,
not to zero?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
No 33 Secretary
news:11667...@sheol.org:
>:: As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway
>:: that civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice
>:: Age has some professional support these days.
>
>: It has for at least 30 years.
>
> OK. So, assume heroic human CO2 production has saved the world
> from ice. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that we're being a
> bit overenthuseastic in our heroism here, and really ought to
> cut back a tad? Just a tad, not to zero?
I didn't say I was willing to assume anything at all. I didn't say
I bought any of the BS from anybody. Peter pointed out that the
idea that our pollution is preventing the next ice age was from
Niven, and that it had some professional support these days. I
pointed out that it has had professional support for at least 30
years. I believe my whole point should be clear: that you can find
professional support for nearly any position you choose, even
goofball ones, and that to the average person, they are all equally
credible. It takes a lot of *work* for someone who isn't a pro
working in the fiend to figure out who knows their ass from a hole
in the ground, because they all make the same hysterical noises.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>:: As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway that
>:: civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age has
>:: some professional support these days.
>
>: It has for at least 30 years.
>
>OK. So, assume heroic human CO2 production has saved the world from ice.
>Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that we're being a bit overenthuseastic
>in our heroism here, and really ought to cut back a tad? Just a tad,
>not to zero?
There's no way we can predict how much controllable warming and
cooling we can do to counter natural cycles to keep the status quo
(the status quo is what is wanted).
Also - there is evidence that roads, farms, buildings, and especially
irrigation have more to do with climate changes than the stuff we have
more control over. Some people also think that over-fishing does
this, but that is more controversial at this time.
Climate isn't simple.
Wayne Throop
: I didn't say I was willing to assume anything at all.
What, not even for purposes of discussion?
: Peter pointed out that the idea that our pollution is preventing the
: next ice age was from Niven, and that it had some professional support
: these days. I pointed out that it has had professional support for at
: least 30 years.
Right. And naict it's usually advanced as a rationale for the plan "we
should not concern ourselves with CO2 emissions at all". Yet... that
doesn't seem a reasonable reaction, if it were true. Indeed, it's
saying that the human effect on climate is *even* *larger*, and even
*more* in need of fretting over, not less.
Not that I assume it is true. Except for purposes of discussion.
No 33 Secretary
>: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>
>: I didn't say I was willing to assume anything at all.
>
> What, not even for purposes of discussion?
Not until we determine whether or not there's any point to
discussion.
>
>: Peter pointed out that the idea that our pollution is
>: preventing the next ice age was from Niven, and that it had
>: some professional support these days. I pointed out that it
>: has had professional support for at least 30 years.
>
> Right. And naict it's usually advanced as a rationale for the
> plan "we should not concern ourselves with CO2 emissions at
> all". Yet... that doesn't seem a reasonable reaction, if it
> were true. Indeed, it's saying that the human effect on climate
> is *even* *larger*, and even *more* in need of fretting over,
> not less.
And yet, I can find equally credible (to the average person, anyway
- their lab coats are just as white and their clipboards are just
as big) professionals who will disagree with you.
>
> Not that I assume it is true. Except for purposes of
> discussion.
>
I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
discussing.
Wayne Throop
:: usually advanced as a rationale for the plan "we should not concern
:: ourselves with CO2 emissions at all". Yet... that doesn't seem a
:: reasonable reaction, if it were true. Indeed, it's saying that the
:: human effect on climate is *even* *larger*, and even *more* in need
:: of fretting over, not less.
: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>
: And yet, I can find equally credible (to the average person, anyway
: - their lab coats are just as white and their clipboards are just
: as big) professionals who will disagree with you.
Who disagree that if anthrogenic contributions are large, there would
be more of a reason for concern than if they were small? I must admit
that would surprise me. Not much, perhaps, since after all, people
say the strangest things sometimes, but still. Probably hearing why
a large change is less worrisome would be entertaining.
Hm. Maybe who disagree that temperatures are rising at all?
I suppose that'd be less surprising, but isn't that a tad rare nowdays?
One might suppose, disagree that the changes are anthrogenic at all,
but this is the subcase of "heroic human intervention staves off ice age",
so we know it's anthrogenic.
: I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
: discussing.
Um.... well. Written SF of course. You know, "speculative"
instead of "science".
Plus, it's a chance to say "anthrogenic" many times in a paragraph.
No 33 Secretary
>:: [anthrogenic climate change staving off an ice age is]
>:: usually advanced as a rationale for the plan "we should not
>:: concern ourselves with CO2 emissions at all". Yet... that
>:: doesn't seem a reasonable reaction, if it were true. Indeed,
>:: it's saying that the human effect on climate is *even*
>:: *larger*, and even *more* in need of fretting over, not less.
>
>: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>
>: And yet, I can find equally credible (to the average person,
>: anyway - their lab coats are just as white and their clipboards
>: are just as big) professionals who will disagree with you.
>
> Who disagree that if anthrogenic contributions are large, there
> would be more of a reason for concern than if they were small?
Very likely, yes.
> I must admit that would surprise me.
Mind you, such people would be complete loons, but still just as
credible _to the average person_ as any other self-proclaimed
Savior Of Mankind And The World. It's as much a comment on the
average person's ability to judge the credibility of sources as
anything else.
>Not much, perhaps, since
> after all, people say the strangest things sometimes, but still.
> Probably hearing why a large change is less worrisome would be
> entertaining.
Perhaps they think the natural changes are so much larger, the
larger the change (in a mitigating direction, presumably) we cause,
the better. Or perhaps they worship Cthulu.
>
> Hm. Maybe who disagree that temperatures are rising at all?
> I suppose that'd be less surprising, but isn't that a tad rare
> nowdays?
They are fewer in number, but still, no doubt, around.
>
> One might suppose, disagree that the changes are anthrogenic at
> all, but this is the subcase of "heroic human intervention
> staves off ice age", so we know it's anthrogenic.
There are those who believe that natural variations in the sun's
output has far more effect than anything we do, certainly.
>
>: I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
>: discussing.
>
> Um.... well. Written SF of course. You know, "speculative"
> instead of "science".
Yeah, that's the ticket.
>
> Plus, it's a chance to say "anthrogenic" many times in a
> paragraph.
>
I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
David Goldfarb
>Plus, it's a chance to say "anthrogenic" many times in a paragraph.
Which is sort of a pity, because unless I'm mistaken the word is
meant to be "anthropogenic".
--
David Goldfarb |From the fortune cookie file:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |"Do not put so much sugar in your coffee, or
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | he will think you extravagant."
Jonathan
"No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98A086FF3F6...@216.168.3.64...
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
> discussing.
Predicting the future, the single most difficult thing to do
that exists.
The chart below gives a nice perspective on the relative
effects of the primary heating/cooling variables.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming5.html
"The above chart shows the current scientific understanding
of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's
energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will
warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects"
Since Hurricane Katrina, a far more diverse set of opinions
have been allowed to speak. So this is a quickly changing
science. But the chart should make it clear the one variable
that appears to upset an otherwise balanced ecosystem
are greenhouse gasses.
And another point difficult to argue are the generic properties
of an ecosystem that has been driven to its 'tipping point'.
Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
been driven past the edge. And this means wild swings
in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.
So, this discussion is about, imo, where and when
the tipping point resides. So that we can know our
future in advance. So that we can know when and
how our civilization dies.
If no one can point clearly to some chart that says
"these answers are here", then our science has failed
to protect and serve our future.
Jonathan
s
Wayne Throop
: gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb)
: Which is sort of a pity, because unless I'm mistaken the word is meant
: to be "anthropogenic".
Hm. Good point. A mento. I should avoid aspartame-laced
carbonated beverages until I get rid of these mentos.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"? Even *I*
can tell it's all about sex.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Predicting the future, the single most difficult thing to do
>that exists.
It's real easy, people do it all the time.
But assuming you mean "accurately predicting the future", how is that
more difficult than running a marathon, creating peace in the Middle
East, or having a baby?
No 33 Secretary
news:458B4728...@worldnet.att.net:
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>
>> I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
>
> Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"?
> Even *I* can tell it's all about sex.
>
Yeah, but it still sounds too scientific to be dirty. It's not being
about sex, it's being about dirty, nasty sex. Preferably, with farm
animals involved.
You've led a very sheltered life.
No 33 Secretary
news:zyGih.8770$h_1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns98A086FF3F6...@216.168.3.64...
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
>> news:11667...@sheol.org:
>
>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
>> discussing.
>
> Predicting the future, the single most difficult thing to do
> that exists.
Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid in
this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna be me on
whether or not I'm right?
>
> The chart below gives a nice perspective on the relative
> effects of the primary heating/cooling variables.
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming5.h
> tml "The above chart shows the current scientific understanding
> of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's
> energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will
> warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects"
>
>
> Since Hurricane Katrina, a far more diverse set of opinions
> have been allowed to speak.
Of course, the following year, no hurricanes hit the US, making the
theory that we will see ever more violent weather rather suspect.
> So this is a quickly changing
> science. But the chart should make it clear the one variable
> that appears to upset an otherwise balanced ecosystem
> are greenhouse gasses.
What should be made clear is that real weather changes take place
on a much, much longer time scale than we have data for, and thus,
we really don't have enough data to do more than speculate wildly.
>
> And another point difficult to argue are the generic properties
> of an ecosystem that has been driven to its 'tipping point'.
If you say so.
>
> Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
> http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
>
> The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
> been driven past the edge.
Is that why the US was hit with zero hurricanes in the last season?
> And this means wild swings
> in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
> to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.
Woe is us. Doom and gloom. The world is coming to an end.
You should kill yourself now, to avoid the Christmas rush.
Seriously. How can you *stand* to live in such a doomed world?
>
> So, this discussion is about, imo, where and when
> the tipping point resides.
Thus slipping in the unspoken - and certainly unproven - assumption
that there _is_ a tripping point. A proposition that is much more
difficult to defend, given the insufficiency of the data, and thus,
less attractive for you to "argue" about.
> So that we can know our
> future in advance. So that we can know when and
> how our civilization dies.
Avoid the Christmas rush. Seriously. Do it now. Long ways, not
cross ways.
>
> If no one can point clearly to some chart that says
> "these answers are here", then our science has failed
> to protect and serve our future.
>
Since that isn't the purpose of science, it is hardly surprising it
isn't very good at it.
Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already true. You
said something stupid.)
Brion K. Lienhart
> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:458B4728...@worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>
>>>I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
>>
>>Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"?
>>Even *I* can tell it's all about sex.
>>
>
> Yeah, but it still sounds too scientific to be dirty. It's not being
> about sex, it's being about dirty, nasty sex. Preferably, with farm
> animals involved.
>
> You've led a very sheltered life.
>
Well, domesticated ruminants *are* a large source of greenhouse gases.
No 33 Secretary
news:p8qdnQ2D3thyiBHY...@comcast.com:
Ok, now *that* sounds *dirty*. In a tubgirl.com sort of way. (NSFW,
and don't say I didn't tell you so.)
Peter D. Tillman
wrote:
It's a pretty weak case (for the reasons y'all suggest), but the
reference is William F. Ruddiman's _Plows, plagues, and petroleum : how
humans took control of climate_ (2005). A very cool book, highly
recommended. Some of his conclusions are speculative (even highly
speculative), but the tide is running in his direction, I think.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Peter D. Tillman
"Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
> http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
>
> The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
> been driven past the edge. And this means wild swings
> in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
> to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.
Well, you northerners maybe. Here in the southwest US, we're looking
forward to the return of the Pleistocene lakes. I have my lakefront
subdivision on the shores of beautiful Lake Lahontan staked out....
Oh, you were thinking of *moving*. In force. Well, we have lots of
dramatic sfnal rehearsals/precedents for that. None of them cheerful,
that I can recall. Anyone?
More seriously, a tipping point is likely, no matter what the cause of
the present warming -- which itself is likely a whole bunch of things,
industrial CO2 one of them. Best to draw up some scenarios. Such as for
the great California droughts in the Mediaeval Warm Period, which make
the historic ones look, well, wet.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Peter D. Tillman
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
Few things are, but that's never stopped engineers before... <G>
Seriously, at some point we'll have to take an active, planned role in
climate control -- at least do some serious, modern research into
methods. Los of sfnal precursors for that, too....
It will be interesting to see the reactions of our present risk-adverse
society if it looks like heroic engineering works are needed.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Peter D. Tillman
Ah, here's a place to hang another myth-slaying:
<http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963>
"The Source of Europe's Mild Climate"
Hint: it ain't the Gulf Stream...
Interesting that this obviously fallacious belief (it dates back to
Admiral Maury in 1855) has lasted so long. Makes a great scare-story for
the Green Warriors, of course -- could that be a factor? <insert irony
mudra here>
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Arthur T.
No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>news:458B4728...@worldnet.att.net:
>
>> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>>
>>> I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
>>
>> Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"?
>> Even *I* can tell it's all about sex.
>>
>Yeah, but it still sounds too scientific to be dirty. It's not being
>about sex, it's being about dirty, nasty sex. Preferably, with farm
>animals involved.
>
>You've led a very sheltered life.
Interesting timing for this digression. See today's
(2006-12-22) 9 Chickweed Lane comic strip:
http://www.comics.com/comics/chickweed/
--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com
Looking for a z/OS (IBM mainframe) systems programmer position
Jens Kilian
> And of course, it is a pure con-incidence that there have recently been
> tornados in Germany - something that was unheard of a few years ago.
Well, not unheard-of, but they definitely seem to get more common.
http://www.tornadoliste.de/ has statistics.
--
mailto:j...@acm.org As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
http://del.icio.us/jjk
Mike Schilling
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote in message
news:Tillman-5E7E53...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net>,
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter D. Tillman wrote:
>>
>> > So far, the bulk of "global"
>> > warming is showing up at high latitudes,
>>
>> Do realize that models of global warming predict just this pattern.
>>
>
> Ah, here's a place to hang another myth-slaying:
> <http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963>
> "The Source of Europe's Mild Climate"
> Hint: it ain't the Gulf Stream...
obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.
Anne M
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fsYih.49485$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
"The Great Nebraska Sea", Allen Danzig, 1963?
Mike Van Pelt
Anne M <amar...@cox.net> wrote:
>> obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
>> lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
>> climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
>> appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.
>
>"The Great Nebraska Sea", Allen Danzig, 1963?
Which inspired a great filk song by Blake Hodgetts,
lyrics at http://www.efn.org/~bch/songs/nebraskasealyr.html
--
Mike Van Pelt | Wikipedia. The roulette wheel of knowledge.
mvp at calweb.com | --Blair P. Houghton
KE6BVH
Monte Davis
>obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
>lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
>climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
>appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.
"The Great Nebraska Sea," Allan Danzig, Galaxy August 1963
Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com
Peter D. Tillman
<Tillman-AA217C...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:
> In article <zyGih.8770$h_1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
> > http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
> >
> > The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
> > been driven past the edge. And this means wild swings
> > in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
> > to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.
>
> Well, you northerners maybe. Here in the southwest US, we're looking
> forward to the return of the Pleistocene lakes. I have my lakefront
> subdivision on the shores of beautiful Lake Lahontan staked out....
>
> Oh, you were thinking of *moving*. In force. Well, we have lots of
> dramatic sfnal rehearsals/precedents for that. None of them cheerful,
> that I can recall. Anyone?
Ah, here's one: "The Weather Man" (1962) by Theodore L. Thomas
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55492>
--a classsic (if clunky) bit of Analog engineer wish-fulfillment
fantasy: complete weather control by (who else?) an elite corps of manly
weather engineers....
This is the one (assuming memory serves) that winds up with a
heart-tugger, a micro-storm produces snow in July for, well, some
specially-deserving, dying person. Make a Wish for the Weather Man!
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Peter D. Tillman
wrote:
> ncw...@hotmail.com writes:
> > And of course, it is a pure con-incidence that there have recently been
> > tornados in Germany - something that was unheard of a few years ago.
>
> Well, not unheard-of, but they definitely seem to get more common.
> http://www.tornadoliste.de/ has statistics.
When we lived in Ireland, a tornado-funnel spotting had the locals all
atwitter. To the amusement of these Tornado Alley Okies....
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Keith Morrison
wrote:
>We don't actually "know" this at all -- this is a propaganda prediction
>of the Al Gore Hot-Air Machine... <g> So far, the bulk of "global"
>warming is showing up at high latitudes, much to the delight of
>residents there. Greenland is getting green again!
Speaking as a resident of said high latitudes, quit blowing smoke. I'm not as panicky of
climate change as my neighbours (being a geologist, I tend to take the long view), but
there's a great deal of concern about warmer weather, ranging from everything over changes
in wildlife and plant distribution (always a concern to people for whom hunting is still a
major part of food production) to concerns over infrastructure due to effects on the
permafrost.
Karl M. Syring
Mike Schilling schrieb:
> obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
> lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
> climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
> appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.
There is a reference to Lake Agassiz in Jack McDevitt's _Ancient
Shores_, but this is not a short story.
Karl M. Syring
Michael Ash
>
> Ah, here's one: "The Weather Man" (1962) by Theodore L. Thomas
> <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55492>
> --a classsic (if clunky) bit of Analog engineer wish-fulfillment
> fantasy: complete weather control by (who else?) an elite corps of manly
> weather engineers....
>
> This is the one (assuming memory serves) that winds up with a
> heart-tugger, a micro-storm produces snow in July for, well, some
> specially-deserving, dying person. Make a Wish for the Weather Man!
This makes me wonder. Suppose weather control of this sort existed. I
don't know how powerful and how precise is realistic, but at the very
least it's now legitimate to be angry at "the weather people" when it's
raining and you don't want it to be, or when the wind is from completely
the wrong direction. How do you decide which weather to have?
It should be fairly obvious that damaging weather should be diverted or
prevented. Thunderstorms should be prevented from building up to the point
where they spawn tornadoes. Rain should be stopped before it becomes a
damaging flood. Hurricanes should be prevented or kept out to sea. But
even this might have unintended long-term consequences.
For the more mundane stuff like whether today is rainy or sunny, how do
you decide? Maybe farmers want the rain, people who have the day off and
are fond of outdoors sports want the sun. You could put it to a vote, but
the small proportion of people who are financially affected by the weather
will be drowned out by the large proportion who just vote for what they
feel like. There could be statutory limits requiring that the amount of
rain be within a certain percent of historical averages.
What about liability? A grieving husband sues "the weather people" after
his wife hit an unseasonable patch of ice on a bridge and goes spinning
into an oncoming semi, does he have a case?
The science of weather modification seems too implausible to me, but the
politics of it sound fascinating.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
Howard Brazee
powerful - they once voted Australia a drought, and the technicians
found a new technique with a spaceship into the sun to let the
inventor of weather control see snow before he died.
Nancy Lebovitz
Michael Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>The science of weather modification seems too implausible to me, but the
>politics of it sound fascinating.
Megan Lindholm's Windsinger books have magical weather control, and it's
very political.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://nancylebov.livejournal.com
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Robert A. Woodward
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
That's the Theodore Thomas story, "The Weatherman", mentioned
earlier on this thread.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Mike Schilling
"Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:robertaw-FAC603...@individual.net...
> In article <u4fro2lforp4mioe6...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> I remember a story about future weather control - the politicians were
>> powerful - they once voted Australia a drought, and the technicians
>> found a new technique with a spaceship into the sun to let the
>> inventor of weather control see snow before he died.
>
> That's the Theodore Thomas story, "The Weatherman", mentioned
> earlier on this thread.
There's another story about weather control [1], in which there's a weather
control board which is supposed to be notified of all weather mods, but
which is usually the last to know. It ends with the complaint that nobody
talks about the weather, but everybody does something about it.
1. I don't recall its name, but it appears in the purportedly-RAH-edited
anthology _Tomorrow, the Stars_.
ke...@hotmail.com
> this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna be me on
> whether or not I'm right?
>
> said something stupid.)
No. No one wants to be you, troll. But you were right, you said
something stupid, as usual!
Robert A. Woodward
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The ISFDB has a table of contents for this anthology; "Rainmaker"
by John Reese is the most obvious candidate (besides, I have read
most of the other stories listed and none of the them fit your
description). However, I can't find Mr. Reese or his story in the
Day Index (and the ISFDB doesn't know of a previous publication
either, though they list 1949 as a publication date).
Larry M Headlund
I just now skimmed through "Rainmaker" in _Tomorrow,the Stars_ and the
story doesn't match the description: no weather control board, no
punned ending.
There is a footnote that notes a 1949 copyright by Curtis Publishing Co..
--
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.
Justin Alexander
Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> We don't actually "know" this at all -- this is a propaganda prediction
> of the Al Gore Hot-Air Machine... <g> So far, the bulk of "global"
> warming is showing up at high latitudes, much to the delight of
> residents there. Greenland is getting green again!
Huh. I never realized you were a kook before, Peter.
> And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
> Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
> -- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.
You just linked to a website run by a non-scientist with ties to the
mining industry. I'm not sure what relevance you think its supposed to
have, other than as a general example of the kookery the
anti-scientific critics of global warming engage in.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
No 33 Secretary
48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
>> Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid in
>> this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna be me on
>> whether or not I'm right?
>>
>> Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already true. You
>> said something stupid.)
>
> No.
Yes. 'Tard.
Peter D. Tillman
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> > And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
> > Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
> > -- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.
>
> You just linked to a website run by a non-scientist with ties to the
> mining industry. I'm not sure what relevance you think its supposed to
> have,
We shouldn't have patent-office clerks messing with physics, either!
> other than as a general example of the kookery the
> anti-scientific critics of global warming engage in.
Ah. And your qualifications for this sweeping statement are?
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
--George Bernard Shaw
ke...@hotmail.com
> >> Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid in
> >> whether or not I'm right?
> >>
> >> Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already true. You
> >> said something stupid.)
> >
>> you said something stupid, as usual!
>
Glad you agreed with me.
Now this Aced Hardware 'Tard is lying, snipping and forging. Does
Mark, or Jeff Schulein know what is going on at Crown Ace?
>X-Suck-My-Dick: Suck My Dick
A challenge for the Schuleins from Terry the 'Tard?
> --
> "What is the first law?"
> "To Protect."
> "And the second?"
> "Ourselves."
>
>Terry Austin
Another copyright ripoff by Terry the 'Tard?
No 33 Secretary
Thanks for loudly proclaiming how much man-love you feel for me,
but you still can't suck my dick until you get that chipped tooth
fixed. Go stalk someone else, 'tard-boy.
ke...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1167386045.8...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
ke...@hotmail.com
Terry the 'Tard said: "Wanna be me...?"
Reply: "No. No one wants to be you..."
Terry the 'Tard: "Yes."
Reply: "Glad you agreed with me."
Terry the 'Tard: "Reduced to simply lying...?"
Yes. You are. 'Tard.
>Thanks for loudly proclaiming how much man-love
>you feel for me
Love for you? In your sick dreams, 'Tard. I doubt there is
one creature on earth who would feel any love for you.
>but you still can't suck my dick
No one would touch it with a ten foot pole. (Well, maybe with a ten
foot
pole there could be some volunteer). But try sticking it into a hole
in the ground, you might get lucky, 'Tard.
Of course Pee Wee Autism cannot resist replying and will do so again.
> No 33 Secretary (Terry Austin) wrote:
>> >> Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid
>> >> in this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna *be
>> >> me* on whether or not I'm right?
>> >> Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already
>> >> true. You said something stupid.)
>> > No. No one wants to be you, troll. But you were right,
>>> you said something stupid, as usual!
>> Yes. 'Tard.
> Glad you agreed with me.
> Now this Iced Hardware 'Tard is lying, snipping and forging.
Terry Austin
promise to stop stalking me? Or does this indicate you don't intend to
return to a US jurisdiction ever again?
--
Terry Austin
Justin Alexander
> In article <1167201466.1...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > > And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
> > > Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
> > > -- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.
> >
> > You just linked to a website run by a non-scientist with ties to the
> > mining industry. I'm not sure what relevance you think its supposed to
> > have,
>
> We shouldn't have patent-office clerks messing with physics, either!
Assuming you're trying to invoke Einstein, you're ignoring the fact he
already had a Physics degree and had published papers in reputable
scientific journals before he ever became a patent clerk. Point me to a
single paper published in a reputable scientific journal in the last
ten years supporting your contention. (You can't, of course.)
More importantly, patent-office clerks can do whatever they like. They
might even get proven right and become internationally famous. But the
"preponderance of evidence" didn't turn in favor of relativity until
there was actually, you know, *evidence* in favor of relativity.
Similarly, kook websites refuting decades of evidence and scientific
theory doesn't constitute a "preponderance of evidence tilting" in any
direction whatsoever.
You want to convince me that you're right? Show me the reputable
evidence.
That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
ke...@hotmail.com
and he will do so again and again...
Peter D. Tillman
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> Point me to a
> single paper published in a reputable scientific journal in the last
> ten years supporting your contention. (You can't, of course.)
[snip]
> You want to convince me that you're right? Show me the reputable
> evidence.
>
> That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
> existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Keith Morrison
wrote:
>> That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
>> existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
>
>Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
>value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
>40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
I'm a working geologist. What's more, I work with the mineral industry. I promote land
for oil and gas exploration. I have serious issue with the Kyoto Accord.
I also think the Climate Audit people are as guilty as picking and cloosing to support
their already-acquired opinions as anyone else.
Justin Alexander
Translation: You have no reputable evidence to present.
Thanks for conceding the argument, Pete.
Peter D. Tillman
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> > > That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
> > > existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
> >
> > Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
> > value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
> > 40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
>
> Translation: You have no reputable evidence to present.
>
> Thanks for conceding the argument, Pete.
Can't say I noticed any detectable argument, Justin -- unless you really
consider your rudeness & ad homs an argument.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
Hans Solo to young Luke: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no
match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Justin Alexander
Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> In article <1167788296....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > > > That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
> > > > existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
> > >
> > > Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
> > > value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
> > > 40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
> >
> > Translation: You have no reputable evidence to present.
> >
> > Thanks for conceding the argument, Pete.
>
> Can't say I noticed any detectable argument, Justin -- unless you really
> consider your rudeness & ad homs an argument.
Because, of course, pointing out that you have no reputable evidence to
back up your erroneous claims constitutes an ad hominem in your mind.
Pardon me while I roll my eyes, yet again, at your complete failure to
back up your position while pretending that your irrational posturing
should be meaningful to the rest of us.
Peter D. Tillman
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> > Can't say I noticed any detectable argument, Justin -- unless you really
> > consider your rudeness & ad homs an argument.
>
> Because, of course, pointing out that you have no reputable evidence to
> back up your erroneous claims constitutes an ad hominem in your mind.
>
> Pardon me while I roll my eyes, yet again, at your complete failure to
> back up your position while pretending that your irrational posturing
> should be meaningful to the rest of us.
Quoting from your posts upthread:
> I never realized you were a kook before, Peter.
> Point me to a
> single paper published in a reputable scientific journal in the last
> ten years supporting your contention. (You can't, of course.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why would I waste my time trying to convince an unpleasant True Believer?
Get a life, Justin.
Pete Tillman
--
"Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." -- Voltaire
Justin Alexander
Yup. You've caught me out. I'm a True Believer in rational thought. I'm
a True Believer in the scientific method. I'm a True Believer in being
convinced only by reputable evidence, not irrational posturing.
And I truly believe that you're a kook because you apparently don't
believe in rational thought, the scientific method, or backing up your
position with reputable evidence.
But feel free to provide some reputable evidence at any time and prove
me wrong, Petey.
John Reiher
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
Sorry fellows, but I've been trying to determine who is on what side of
the global warming argument, but I can't tell, I've lost track of who is
on what side.
The "debate" has degenerated down to simple name calling and you both
end up looking like kooks. No offense intended, but could you take your
name calling offline?
Oh wait, I know how to stop this argument: Hitler! Nazis!
There, Godwin's law has been invoked and you have to stop.
Take care the both of you and please wipe the saliva off your monitors...
--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute
Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Justin Alexander
John Reiher wrote:
> In article <1168061708.3...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Why would I waste my time trying to convince an unpleasant True Believer?
> >
> > Yup. You've caught me out. I'm a True Believer in rational thought. I'm
> > a True Believer in the scientific method. I'm a True Believer in being
> > convinced only by reputable evidence, not irrational posturing.
> >
> > And I truly believe that you're a kook because you apparently don't
> > believe in rational thought, the scientific method, or backing up your
> > position with reputable evidence.
> >
> > But feel free to provide some reputable evidence at any time and prove
> > me wrong, Petey.
>
> Sorry fellows, but I've been trying to determine who is on what side of
> the global warming argument, but I can't tell, I've lost track of who is
> on what side.
There's actually no argument about global warming going on here. For
that to happen, Petey would need to provide reputable evidence
supporting his position. Since he refuses to do that, it's meaningless
to describe this as a discussion about global warming. This is a
discussion about Petey's refusal to participate in a rational
discussion.
> The "debate" has degenerated down to simple name calling and you both
> end up looking like kooks. No offense intended, but could you take your
> name calling offline?
No offense intended, but could you take your rampant hypocrisy offline?
> Oh wait, I know how to stop this argument: Hitler! Nazis!
>
> There, Godwin's law has been invoked and you have to stop.
Yeah. I see your grasp of Godwin's Law is about as solid as your grasp
of "namecalling". Here's some cheap reading material for you to peruse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
William December Starr
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> said:
> Quoting from your posts upthread:
>
>> I never realized you were a kook before, Peter.
>>
>> Point me to a single paper published in a reputable
>> scientific journal in the last ten years supporting your
>> contention. (You can't, of course.)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Why would I waste my time trying to convince an unpleasant
> True Believer?
>
> Get a life, Justin.
"I _do_ have proof, but it is not for the likes of you"?
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Keith Morrison <kei...@qiniq.com> said
So is your position ..
a) Global warming isn't happening
b) It is, but it's nothing to do with human activity
c) It is, but there's nothing we can possibly do to fix it
d) there is, but we can't afford it?
The average USnian seems to have made it as far as c) by now, but I'm
sure there are some stuck at other stages.
Hint: Fixing it will be expensive, painful, and difficult. We (you/I)
have to pay, and the wealthier countries are going to have to pay/suffer
most. Actually we have to change our ways .. merely paying a/the 'carbon
tax' to someone won't solve the problem.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
7,053 Km walked. 1,267Km PROWs surveyed. 23.0% complete.
insan...@gmail.com
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > Because, of course, pointing out that you have no reputable evidence to
> > back up your erroneous claims constitutes an ad hominem in your mind.
> >
> > Pardon me while I roll my eyes, yet again, at your complete failure to
> > back up your position while pretending that your irrational posturing
> > should be meaningful to the rest of us.
>
Just came across this one:
"There is a wealth of evidence, however, that climate change is never
ending. Even if major climatic "steps" are comparatively quick, it
is almost certain that the climate in the intervals between steps
undergoes continual lesser changes. In the light of present knowledge,
therefore, (Margaret) Davis' view, that disequilibrium in ecological
communities is much commoner than equilibrium, is the more acceptable.
It should lead, in time, to a much needed change in popular thought.
The notion espoused by so many nonprofessional ecologists - that the
living world is "marvelously" and "delicately" attuned to its
environment - is not so much a scientifically reasonable theory as a
mystically satisfying dogma. Its abandonment might lead to a useful
fresh start in environmental politics."
E.C. Pielou, 1991, "After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to
Glaciated North America"
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)
Justin Alexander
insaneh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In article <1167962517.5...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> >
>
> > > Because, of course, pointing out that you have no reputable evidence to
> > > back up your erroneous claims constitutes an ad hominem in your mind.
> > >
> > > Pardon me while I roll my eyes, yet again, at your complete failure to
> > > back up your position while pretending that your irrational posturing
> > > should be meaningful to the rest of us.
>
> Just came across this one:
Just as a quick reminder, this is the statement Petey is trying to
support with reputable evidence: "And I think the preponderance of
evidence is tilting against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)..."
So, to back that up, Petey provides:
> "There is a wealth of evidence, however, that climate change is never
> ending. Even if major climatic "steps" are comparatively quick, it
> is almost certain that the climate in the intervals between steps
> undergoes continual lesser changes. In the light of present knowledge,
> therefore, (Margaret) Davis' view, that disequilibrium in ecological
> communities is much commoner than equilibrium, is the more acceptable.
>
> It should lead, in time, to a much needed change in popular thought.
> The notion espoused by so many nonprofessional ecologists - that the
> living world is "marvelously" and "delicately" attuned to its
> environment - is not so much a scientifically reasonable theory as a
> mystically satisfying dogma. Its abandonment might lead to a useful
> fresh start in environmental politics."
>
> E.C. Pielou, 1991, "After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to
> Glaciated North America"
... a quote which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
Drawn from a history book about the end of the last ice age 18,000
years ago.
So I say once again: Pardon me while I roll my eyes, yet again, at your
complete failure to back up your position while pretending that your
irrational posturing should be meaningful to the rest of us."
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
John Schilling
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Bitstring <55mjp2tujrpqnvbc4...@4ax.com>, from the
>wonderful person Keith Morrison <kei...@qiniq.com> said
>>On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:44:11 -0700, "Peter D. Tillman"
>>>> That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
>>>> existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
>>>Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
>>>value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
>>>40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
>>I'm a working geologist. What's more, I work with the mineral industry.
>>I promote land
>>for oil and gas exploration. I have serious issue with the Kyoto Accord.
>>I also think the Climate Audit people are as guilty as picking and
>>cloosing to support
>>their already-acquired opinions as anyone else.
>So is your position ..
>a) Global warming isn't happening
>b) It is, but it's nothing to do with human activity
>c) It is, but there's nothing we can possibly do to fix it
>d) there is, but we can't afford it?
>The average USnian seems to have made it as far as c) by now, but I'm
>sure there are some stuck at other stages.
>Hint: Fixing it will be expensive, painful, and difficult. We (you/I)
>have to pay, and the wealthier countries are going to have to pay/suffer
>most. Actually we have to change our ways .. merely paying a/the 'carbon
>tax' to someone won't solve the problem.
How does paying a/the "carbon tax" to people running a sequestration
effort on a suitable scale, not solve the problem?
And for that matter, why do the wealthier countries *have* to pay or
suffer the most? Seems quite easy to arrange for the greatest burden
to fall on the less prosperous nations. Indeed, that's pretty much
the default outcome if nobody does much of anything.
Whether "fixing it" will in fact be expensive, painful, difficult,
and/or require a wholesale change in the way of life of the wealthy,
is as yet unknown
BUT:
The reason people are so incredibly skeptical on your points a, b, c,
and d, is that pretty much EVERY SINGLE TIME something like this has
come up in the past, the environmental movement and the scientists
willing to stand with them have been pretty obviously STARTING with
the "Wealthy nations must chang their ways, difficult/expensive/painful!"
conclusion, and trying to backfill it with, let's see, air pollution,
water pollution, pesticide use, acid rain, ozone depletion, and I
think at one point there was even an incipient ice age in there.
They have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME, with the necessary fixes being
relatively inexpensive and not requiring wholesale changes in the western
way of life. And they've been wrong in ways that do not the least bit
suggest, "Oops, honest mistake, we'll get it right next time", but rather,
"curses, foiled again in our plan to bring down Western civilization!"
We'll probably get around to fixing global warming, whether anthropogenic
or otherwise. We'll probably do it while maintaining the extravagant and
wasteful lifestyle we've become acustomed to. Demands that we fix the
problem by crashing Western civilization, or even just downsizing the
US economy to something you're comfortable with, are only going to delay
the process a bit.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
John Reiher
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> We'll probably get around to fixing global warming, whether anthropogenic
> or otherwise. We'll probably do it while maintaining the extravagant and
> wasteful lifestyle we've become acustomed to. Demands that we fix the
> problem by crashing Western civilization, or even just downsizing the
> US economy to something you're comfortable with, are only going to delay
> the process a bit.
I'll second that statement, and add that if individuals, *voluntarily*
decide to cut back on their "carbon production", more power to them.
Telling them that "You are evil because you consume (pick one) 100/50/25
times the amount of fuel/food/land/air than someone in the Amazonian
Rainforest. To make amends, you must live like a monk for the rest of
your life."
I find the thought that all of the current global warming trend is
entirely man-made, is the highest form of hubris I've ever seen. We may
be going through another "warming period" like we did during the
infamous Medieval Warming Period. Now, we may be making it a bit worse,
but I doubt that we caused it.
I'll wager that we can cut back to 1 ton of carbon per person and the
temperature will keep on going up.
As Mr Schilling has pointed out, it's more along the lines of crying
"the sky is falling" on the part of the greens, than any reliable
evidence that has been produced.
And before you claim that the scientists that I'm backing are
disreputable, I'll make the counter-claim that my scientists are no more
disreputable than your scientists, most of whom work for Environmental
Front/Green Party organizations.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory, and like all good theories, it
must make certain predictions that can be tested. And that prediction
can't be self referential. It must make a prediction that so far hasn't
been observed or associated with the current phenomena.
Let me set a test: Take the best Global Climate Modeling software out
there and feed it data from 1986-1996 and then run for ten years. Does
the year 2006 match the real year 2006 and if it doesn't, by how much
for each variable and region?
As you can tell, I'm not denying climate change, I just denying that man
had anything to do with it. We can make it a little worse, but we didn't
cause it.
Justin Alexander
> How does paying a/the "carbon tax" to people running a sequestration
> effort on a suitable scale, not solve the problem?
I'm generally with you. The market-based solution to acid rain in the
Clean Air Act of 1990, for example, has been a complete success from my
understanding. Not using it as an example of how to reduce pollutant
output would be foolhardy.
That being said, I don't think that a market-based solution is
particularly elegant as a solution to personal carbon emissions -- by
which I primarily mean automobiles and the burning of fossil fuel. I
think the only solution there is to vigorously pursue alternative
energy sources that meaningfully reduce carbon emissions.
For example, the CFC ban made sense because we already had
technological alternatives to essentially everything that CFCs were
used for (and things we didn't have alternatives for were generally
excepted from the ban until alternatives were found). The CFC ban has
been a huge success (the hole in the ozone layer is now shrinking, not
expanding), and the economic impact has been minimal (almost
essentially nonexistent).
But until the technological aspects are in place, it would be foolhardy
to simple ban automobiles (for example). Deferring the economic
catastrophes of global warming (some of which appear to have already
begun) by creating a massive economic catastrophe immediately makes no
sense at all.
That's why I support the Democratic proposal to roll back the tax
breaks and other incentives currently given to big oil companies and,
instead, invest that money into developing alternative fuels and the
infrastructure to support them.
> They have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME, with the necessary fixes being
> relatively inexpensive and not requiring wholesale changes in the western
> way of life. And they've been wrong in ways that do not the least bit
> suggest, "Oops, honest mistake, we'll get it right next time", but rather,
> "curses, foiled again in our plan to bring down Western civilization!"
This seems a trifle extreme. I think most of these people are reacting
with Stone Age-instincts to a modern problem: They see something that's
causing harm and their instinctive reaction is to stop doing it.
In most situations, that base instinct is just fine. (That's why when
it comes to physical harm, it's hard-coded.) But when the consequences
of "just stop doing it" are "disrupt modern society and send the entire
economy into a tailspin, creating hardship and disaster on a global
scale", you should probably detach those Stone Age instincts, engage
your rational mind, and try to find a different solution.
But the other extreme of the debate is similarly engaged in a
disconnect from rationality. Pretending that this isn't a problem
doesn't solve anything -- it just makes the problem worse and harder to
solve when you finally face up to reality.
Justin Alexander
John Reiher wrote:
> I find the thought that all of the current global warming trend is
> entirely man-made, is the highest form of hubris I've ever seen.
Do you similarly think that humans had nothing to do with the depletion
of the ozone layer or acid rain? Was suggesting such a thing the
"highest form of hubris" you'd ever seen prior to scientists telling
you that all the evidence indicated that global warming was being
caused by artificial carbon emissions?
Because people certainly argued that. Maybe they were right all along.
But they've got the worst luck in the world: When we took efforts to
ban CFCs (which scientists said were depleting the ozone layer), the
damage to the ozone layer came to a slow stop and then reversed itself.
When we took efforts to reduce the pollutants which scientists said
were causing acid rain, our problems with acid rain reversed
themselves.
> And before you claim that the scientists that I'm backing are
> disreputable, I'll make the counter-claim that my scientists are no more
> disreputable than your scientists,
The only scientists who agree with your position are paid by the oil
companies or have similar biases. (Or aren't climatologists.) None of
them have ever conducted any research disputing global warming which
actually meets the basic standards necessary for publication in a
scientific journal.
> most of whom work for Environmental
> Front/Green Party organizations.
And while some of the scientists who support global warming work for
such organizations (and are potentially biased in the same way that the
scientists paid for by oil companies would be biased), most of them do
not. Thousands of their papers have been published in reputable
scientific journals. You are apparently misinformed.
> Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory, and like all good theories, it
> must make certain predictions that can be tested. And that prediction
> can't be self referential. It must make a prediction that so far hasn't
> been observed or associated with the current phenomena.
It has. Several times. They've been verified. Several times. And then
the anti-science pundits and oil lobbyists move the goalposts again.
> As you can tell, I'm not denying climate change, I just denying that man
> had anything to do with it. We can make it a little worse, but we didn't
> cause it.
Have any reputable evidence to back that up?
John Reiher
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> John Reiher wrote:
> > I find the thought that all of the current global warming trend is
> > entirely man-made, is the highest form of hubris I've ever seen.
>
> Do you similarly think that humans had nothing to do with the depletion
> of the ozone layer or acid rain?
Those had direct evidence, and the linkage was well established for both
the hole in the ozone layer and especially for acid rain. Yes there
natural mechanisms that can blow holes in the ozone, such as the solar
wind following the lines of magnetic and hammering the ozone layer,
causing a 60% reduction of the higher ozone layers:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1614
What was that again about hubris?
> > And before you claim that the scientists that I'm backing are
> > disreputable, I'll make the counter-claim that my scientists are no more
> > disreputable than your scientists,
>
> The only scientists who agree with your position are paid by the oil
> companies or have similar biases. (Or aren't climatologists.) None of
> them have ever conducted any research disputing global warming which
> actually meets the basic standards necessary for publication in a
> scientific journal.
>
> > most of whom work for Environmental
> > Front/Green Party organizations.
>
> And while some of the scientists who support global warming work for
> such organizations (and are potentially biased in the same way that the
> scientists paid for by oil companies would be biased), most of them do
> not. Thousands of their papers have been published in reputable
> scientific journals. You are apparently misinformed.
Climatologists study climate, do they specialize in chemistry or other
natural phenomena? No, most them depend on papers written by chemists,
and physicists to come up with their conclusions. But do they know about
the natural circulation of carbon in the environment?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
Robert Essenhigh
Bailey Professor, Mechanical Engineering
B.A. 1951, Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge
MS 1955, Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge
PhD 1959, Fuel Technology and Chemical Engineering, University of
Sheffield
And he's very good at defending his position:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/i11/html/11box.html
And as far as I can find out, he is not in the pay of the evil oil
companies, though he has done many studies on combustion and fuel
related science.
Remember, who was it that proposed that an asteroid did in the
Dinosaurs? A geologist working for the oil companies...
Paul F. Dietz
> I'm generally with you. The market-based solution to acid rain in the
> Clean Air Act of 1990, for example, has been a complete success from my
> understanding. Not using it as an example of how to reduce pollutant
> output would be foolhardy.
As I understand it, the cost of reducing SOx emissions turned
out to be a factor of 6 lower than had been projected.
Paul
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> said
You added a phrase which was not in my statement. 'People running a
sequestration effort on a suitable scale'. As opposed to 'people
planting the same number of trees as they always used to' or
'governments pocketing the money and running'. Paying the tax does
nothing at all.
>And for that matter, why do the wealthier countries *have* to pay or
>suffer the most? Seems quite easy to arrange for the greatest burden
>to fall on the less prosperous nations. Indeed, that's pretty much
>the default outcome if nobody does much of anything.
Because poor nations CANNOT pay. Not 'won't' or 'wouldn't like to', but
'don't have the ability'. Nor can they cut their carbon footprint by
umpteen gigatons/year, since they don't even use that much yet.
>Whether "fixing it" will in fact be expensive, painful, difficult,
>and/or require a wholesale change in the way of life of the wealthy,
>is as yet unknown
It appears to be expensive, painful, and difficult even to get the
largest consumers (Westpondians) to think about it seriously, never mind
do it.
>BUT:
>
>The reason people are so incredibly skeptical on your points a, b, c,
>and d, is that pretty much EVERY SINGLE TIME something like this has
>come up in the past, the environmental movement and the scientists
>willing to stand with them have been pretty obviously STARTING with
>the "Wealthy nations must chang their ways, difficult/expensive/painful!"
>conclusion, and trying to backfill it with, let's see, air pollution,
>water pollution, pesticide use, acid rain, ozone depletion, and I
>think at one point there was even an incipient ice age in there.
>
>They have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME, with the necessary fixes being
>relatively inexpensive and not requiring wholesale changes in the western
>way of life.
I'm not claiming we can't afford it, or that it is impossible, just that
it requires a bit more effort than you appear willing to put in so far.
Giving up open coal fires in cities, DDT, and CFCs, was achieved (in
most of the civlised world, the 3rd world got cut some slack iirc)
because people decided it was necessary. Getting that level of consensus
on (net) carbon dioxide output appears impossible - why is that??
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
insan...@gmail.com
> insaneh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just as a quick reminder, this is the statement Petey is trying to
> support with reputable evidence: "And I think the preponderance of
> evidence is tilting against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)..."
>
> So, to back that up, Petey provides:
>
> > "There is a wealth of evidence, however, that climate change is never
> > ending. Even if major climatic "steps" are comparatively quick, it
> > is almost certain that the climate in the intervals between steps
> > undergoes continual lesser changes. In the light of present knowledge,
> > therefore, (Margaret) Davis' view, that disequilibrium in ecological
> > communities is much commoner than equilibrium, is the more acceptable.
> >
> > It should lead, in time, to a much needed change in popular thought.
> > The notion espoused by so many nonprofessional ecologists - that the
> > living world is "marvelously" and "delicately" attuned to its
> > environment - is not so much a scientifically reasonable theory as a
> > mystically satisfying dogma. Its abandonment might lead to a useful
> > fresh start in environmental politics."
> >
> > E.C. Pielou, 1991, "After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to
> > Glaciated North America"
>
> ... a quote which has " with global warming.
> Drawn from a history book about the end of the last ice age 18,000
> years ago.
>
Justin, are you really tying to say that study of past climate patterns
has "absolutely nothing to do" with what the climate might do in the
future??
[shakes head]
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves rage in vain.
-- Friedrich von Schiller
George W Harris
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
:
:I'm not claiming we can't afford it, or that it is impossible, just that
:it requires a bit more effort than you appear willing to put in so far.
:Giving up open coal fires in cities, DDT, and CFCs, was achieved (in
:most of the civlised world, the 3rd world got cut some slack iirc)
:because people decided it was necessary. Getting that level of consensus
:on (net) carbon dioxide output appears impossible - why is that??
Because of the millions of dollars the oil and coal
industries spend to fund front groups to confuse the issue.
:
:--
:GSV Three Minds in a Can
:7,053 Km walked. 1,267Km PROWs surveyed. 23.0% complete.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Justin Alexander
John Reiher wrote:
> In article <1168577357.4...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > John Reiher wrote:
> > > I find the thought that all of the current global warming trend is
> > > entirely man-made, is the highest form of hubris I've ever seen.
> >
> > Do you similarly think that humans had nothing to do with the depletion
> > of the ozone layer or acid rain?
>
> Those had direct evidence, and the linkage was well established for both
> the hole in the ozone layer and especially for acid rain. Yes there
> natural mechanisms that can blow holes in the ozone, such as the solar
> wind following the lines of magnetic and hammering the ozone layer,
> causing a 60% reduction of the higher ozone layers:
>
> http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1614
>
> What was that again about hubris?
So are you attempting to dispute that these are man-made problems or
admitting that they were man-made problems? You seem to be saying both
things at once.
> > > And before you claim that the scientists that I'm backing are
> > > disreputable, I'll make the counter-claim that my scientists are no more
> > > disreputable than your scientists,
> >
> > The only scientists who agree with your position are paid by the oil
> > companies or have similar biases. (Or aren't climatologists.) None of
> > them have ever conducted any research disputing global warming which
> > actually meets the basic standards necessary for publication in a
> > scientific journal.
>
> Robert Essenhigh
> Bailey Professor, Mechanical Engineering
> B.A. 1951, Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge
> MS 1955, Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge
> PhD 1959, Fuel Technology and Chemical Engineering, University of
> Sheffield
>
> And he's very good at defending his position:
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/i11/html/11box.html
The defunct Chemical Innovations magazine his essay was published in
isn't a scientific journal. Nor is he a climatologist. Nor is the role
of H2O in global warming as ignored as he would suggest -- even
Wikipedia is apparently aware of it
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect).
The natural carbon cycle Essenhigh talks about is, in fact, one of the
reasons that man's relatively modest contribution to atmospheric carbon
can have such a big effect: Raising temperatures tends to release more
greenhouse gases into the air; releasing more greenhouse gases into the
air tends to raise temperatures. That's a feedback loop.
Ultimately, anyone claiming that rising carbon levels in the atmosphere
are the result of a "natural cycle" need to explain why the ice core
data indicates that we now have carbon levels far in excess of the
historical high.
Maybe you're right and it's just sheer coincidence that "natural"
cycles have coincided to make it look as if human industry releasing
carbon into the atmosphere has resulted in there being lots more carbon
in the atmosphere than there has ever been before in the history of the
geological record. But the likelihood of that is right up there with
"it's pure coincidence that, when CFCs were reduced, the damage
scientists said CFCs were causing was reversed" and "it's pure
coincidence that, when the pollution scientists said was causing acid
rain was reduced, acid rain was reduced".
Sure, it's *possible*. But only in the same sense that it's possible
eating high-caloric food is only correlated with weight gain through
sheer coincidence and isn't actually causing the weight gain. Occam's
Razor suggests otherwise.
Justin Alexander
insaneh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Justin Alexander wrote:
> > > E.C. Pielou, 1991, "After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to
> > > Glaciated North America"
> >
> > Drawn from a history book about the end of the last ice age 18,000
> > years ago.
>
> Justin, are you really tying to say that study of past climate patterns
> has "absolutely nothing to do" with what the climate might do in the
> future??
>
> [shakes head]
Petey, are you actively lying about what I said while quoting what I
actually said? Yes. Yes you are. What a weird thing to do.
But while we're here, have you managed to find any thing to
substantiate your previous statement? Remember, the statement in
question is: "And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting
against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)..."
Quotes about an ice age 18,000 years ago, you'll note, don't accomplish
this.
Better luck next time, Petey.
Howard Brazee
<jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>> What was that again about hubris?
>
>So are you attempting to dispute that these are man-made problems or
>admitting that they were man-made problems? You seem to be saying both
>things at once.
Hubris hits in many ways. Some ways shown in this debate are the
assumptions that
- if there is a climate change, then we caused it
- if we agree to the law I'm in favor - everything will be groovy
- even if the cause is natural, we can stop it (change is
uncomfortable)
But our biggest impacts on the environment (including climate), are
buildings, roads, farms, irrigation, water projects, forestry - and
arguably over-fishing. These won't be changed by following any
treaty.
Peter D. Tillman
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> > Justin, are you really tying to say that study of past climate patterns
> > has "absolutely nothing to do" with what the climate might do in the
> > future??
> >
> > [shakes head]
>
> Petey, are you actively lying about what I said while quoting what I
> actually said? Yes. Yes you are. What a weird thing to do.
>
Justin, you're too weird and clumsily combative for me. Have a nice life
in your dream-world.
So long, Pete Tillman
Justin Alexander
Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> In article <1168629359.1...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > > Justin, are you really tying to say that study of past climate patterns
> > > has "absolutely nothing to do" with what the climate might do in the
> > > future??
> > >
> > > [shakes head]
> >
> > Petey, are you actively lying about what I said while quoting what I
> > actually said? Yes. Yes you are. What a weird thing to do.
> >
> > substantiate your previous statement? Remember, the statement in
> > question is: "And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting
> > against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)..."
>
> in your dream-world.
So that would be a "no", then?
You apparently think that rational thought is "weird", that requiring
hard evidence means living in a "dream-world", and that demanding
relevant contributions to a debate (rather than complete non sequiturs)
constitutes a "combative" attitude.
You, like the fantasies of your anti-scientific global warming beliefs,
are obviously out of touch with reality.
John Schilling
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Bitstring <2kndq2tpi7nej0oal...@4ax.com>, from the
>wonderful person John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> said
>>BUT:
>>
>>The reason people are so incredibly skeptical on your points a, b, c,
>>and d, is that pretty much EVERY SINGLE TIME something like this has
>>come up in the past, the environmental movement and the scientists
>>willing to stand with them have been pretty obviously STARTING with
>>the "Wealthy nations must chang their ways, difficult/expensive/painful!"
>>conclusion, and trying to backfill it with, let's see, air pollution,
>>water pollution, pesticide use, acid rain, ozone depletion, and I
>>think at one point there was even an incipient ice age in there.
>>
>>They have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME, with the necessary fixes being
>>relatively inexpensive and not requiring wholesale changes in the western
>>way of life.
>
>I'm not claiming we can't afford it, or that it is impossible, just that
>it requires a bit more effort than you appear willing to put in so far.
>Giving up open coal fires in cities, DDT, and CFCs, was achieved (in
>most of the civlised world, the 3rd world got cut some slack iirc)
>because people decided it was necessary. Getting that level of consensus
>on (net) carbon dioxide output appears impossible - why is that??
That is because the people who took the lead on this one, insisted on
squandering their moral authority on A: the giant festering load of
crap that is Kyoto, and B: preemptively discrediting anyone who would
suggest anything but Kyoto, Son of Kyoto, and Still More Kyoto, as the
solution.
Sorry, but no. Anyone willing and able to engage in rational thought,
will quickly recognize that Kyoto was specifically designed to embarass
and/or economically hamstring the United States, make the rest of the
Western world to feel good about itself without requiring sacrifice,
and have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global warming problem.
Well, OK, that last part wasn't specifically *planned*; it just followed
from the first two requirements. I'll give the activists enough credit
to say they wouldn't actually *object* to soliving the global warming
problem, if it doesn't get in the way of achieving their main goals.
But Kyoto isn't going to solve the problem, and neither is Son of Kyoto
nor Still More Kyoto.
Which means, solving the problem is going to require first beating the
entire mainstream environmental movement into submission, and *then*
moving on to the whole carbon dioxide thing. Obviously, it takes a bit
longer to establish a consensus for that. You can help, if you want, by
doing whatever you can to locally discredit Greenpeace and company.
Assuming you actually want to help solve the global warming problem,
and are willing to engage in rational thought. I'm not holding my
breath.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
John Schilling
<jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>John Schilling wrote:
>> How does paying a/the "carbon tax" to people running a sequestration
>> effort on a suitable scale, not solve the problem?
>
>I'm generally with you. The market-based solution to acid rain in the
>Clean Air Act of 1990, for example, has been a complete success from my
>understanding. Not using it as an example of how to reduce pollutant
>output would be foolhardy.
>
>That being said, I don't think that a market-based solution is
>particularly elegant as a solution to personal carbon emissions -- by
>which I primarily mean automobiles and the burning of fossil fuel. I
>think the only solution there is to vigorously pursue alternative
>energy sources that meaningfully reduce carbon emissions.
Can't agree with you here. First off, alternative carbon sinks are
as valid a solution as alternative energy sources. If for every
gallon of gasoline burned, eighteen pounds of CO2 are pumped into
a depleted oil well, the net effect is carbon neutrality and there
is no environmental reason to insist on not burning the gasoline.
And it seems perfectly reasonable to let the market make the decision.
Put an extra $0.05/gallon tax on gasoline, and use the ten billion or
so dollars collected per year to buy carbon sequestration services at
reverse auction. Fuels other than gasoline get taxed proportionately
to net CO2 release. See what happens, adjust tax rate accordingly.
Or, if you prefer, just mandate that anyone who sells a gallon of
gasoline must arrange for the sequestration of, eventually, five
pounds of carbon at their own expense (passed on to the customers,
of course). Either way, start small and work your way up rather
than insisting on complete carbon neutrality from day one, of course.
And let the market decide, based on relative costs as determined
through price feedback, whether the solution is more fuel-efficient
vehicles, less carbon-intense fuels, and/or carbon sequestration.
>For example, the CFC ban made sense because we already had
>technological alternatives to essentially everything that CFCs were
>used for (and things we didn't have alternatives for were generally
>excepted from the ban until alternatives were found). The CFC ban has
>been a huge success (the hole in the ozone layer is now shrinking, not
>expanding), and the economic impact has been minimal (almost
>essentially nonexistent).
That's definitely the model we're trying to replicate, at least as
far as results are concerned.
>But until the technological aspects are in place, it would be foolhardy
>to simple ban automobiles (for example). Deferring the economic
>catastrophes of global warming (some of which appear to have already
>begun) by creating a massive economic catastrophe immediately makes no
>sense at all.
And that's definitely *not* the model we're trying to replicate. Well,
OK, Al Gore and Greenpeace are trying to replicate it, because for them
the massive economic catastrophe is the whole point, but I'm pretty sure
we aren't going to let them win.
>That's why I support the Democratic proposal to roll back the tax
>breaks and other incentives currently given to big oil companies and,
>instead, invest that money into developing alternative fuels and the
>infrastructure to support them.
Who's going to do the investing?
Because the government, absolutely *sucks* when it comes to investing
huge sums of money into science and/or technological R&D. The government
pays for effort, not results, and it gets what it pays for. You can get
millions of dollars of government money for a bit of useful R&D here and
there. When the money climbs into the billions, the perverse incentives
take over, and you very rarely get anything worthwhile out of it.
Note in particular that the CFC substitutes, were *not* the result of a
multi-billion-dollar government "Save the Ozone Layer!" megaproject. If
you want the same results with carbon emissions, you're going to need to
have industry invest its own money.
>> They have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME, with the necessary fixes being
>> relatively inexpensive and not requiring wholesale changes in the western
>> way of life. And they've been wrong in ways that do not the least bit
>> suggest, "Oops, honest mistake, we'll get it right next time", but rather,
>> "curses, foiled again in our plan to bring down Western civilization!"
>This seems a trifle extreme. I think most of these people are reacting
>with Stone Age-instincts to a modern problem: They see something that's
>causing harm and their instinctive reaction is to stop doing it.
That may be the instinct that the leaders of the environmental movement
are trying to tap into for the sake of building support, though they will
of course never admit to such a thing.
But those leaders themselves, I do *not* believe are reacting according
to mindless primitive instinct, and I think they'd reject the description
themselves. Al Gore as unthinking neanderthal? No; these people have
put a lot of thought into this, and at times they've slipped up and let
their real feelings color their public comments. It's pretty clear that
for them, rolling back the industrial revolution is a goal in and of
itself.
And it's not just a few people at the top, either. A whole lot of the
mainstream environmental movement's rank and file, when you talk to them,
betray their intrinsic hostility to industrial civilization.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Peter D. Tillman
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> Anyone willing and able to engage in rational thought,
> will quickly recognize that Kyoto was specifically designed to embarass
> and/or economically hamstring the United States, make the rest of the
> Western world to feel good about itself without requiring sacrifice,
> and have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global warming problem.
> Well, OK, that last part wasn't specifically *planned*; it just followed
> from the first two requirements. I'll give the activists enough credit
> to say they wouldn't actually *object* to soliving the global warming
> problem, if it doesn't get in the way of achieving their main goals.
>
> But Kyoto isn't going to solve the problem, and neither is Son of Kyoto
> nor Still More Kyoto.
Nail on the head, John!
Plus, it's not clear that there really is a problem. Other than, it's
getting warmer, just as it did, say, c. 1000 AD.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Justin Alexander
Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> In article <1167788296....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > > > That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
> > > > existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
> > >
> > > Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
> > > value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
> > > 40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
> >
> >
> > Thanks for conceding the argument, Pete.
>
> Can't say I noticed any detectable argument
That's because you failed to make one, Petey. That's why you're
conceding.
But feel free to present reputable evidence at any time to prove me
wrong, Petey.
Justin Alexander
That's a good argument, John. Good enough to convince me. From an
economic standpoint, pollution can essentially be seen as a cost which
a producer is illegitimately passing onto others -- allowing the
producer to artificially lower their prices and unfairly compete. Your
solution has the virtue of making the producer pay for that cost
(instead of passing it onto the population at large).
>From my understanding there is some scientific doubt whether 1-for-1
carbon-sinking works. (For a variety of reasons, including the fact
that many carbon sinks release their carbon again within a
significantly short span of time.) But that's just a matter of tweaking
the system properly. (You'd want to build to a higher than 1-for-1
ratio in the short-term, anyway, to reverse the damage already done.)
My belief is that alternative energy sources (to oil) are important for
reasons of national security, so I would still argue that it's
worthwhile to reduce or eliminate government subsidies to oil
production and distribution while reinvesting that money into the
development of competitive alternative fuels.
> >But until the technological aspects are in place, it would be foolhardy
> >to simple ban automobiles (for example). Deferring the economic
> >catastrophes of global warming (some of which appear to have already
> >begun) by creating a massive economic catastrophe immediately makes no
> >sense at all.
>
> And that's definitely *not* the model we're trying to replicate. Well,
> OK, Al Gore and Greenpeace are trying to replicate it, because for them
> the massive economic catastrophe is the whole point, but I'm pretty sure
> we aren't going to let them win.
Well, Greenpeace is generally kooky. But Gore's emphasis seems to be on
carbon neutrality.
> >That's why I support the Democratic proposal to roll back the tax
> >breaks and other incentives currently given to big oil companies and,
> >instead, invest that money into developing alternative fuels and the
> >infrastructure to support them.
>
> Who's going to do the investing?
>
> Because the government, absolutely *sucks* when it comes to investing
> huge sums of money into science and/or technological R&D. The government
> pays for effort, not results, and it gets what it pays for. You can get
> millions of dollars of government money for a bit of useful R&D here and
> there. When the money climbs into the billions, the perverse incentives
> take over, and you very rarely get anything worthwhile out of it.
While I think that government investment in R&D is demonstrably crucial
in areas where business lacks the ability and/or foresight to invest
research dollars, I think that in the case of alternative fuels (in
which businesses are quite capable of recognizing returns for
investment) the government is generally better off investing in
necessary infrastructure (the same way it historically did to
jump-start the gasoline and electricity industries).
> But Kyoto isn't going to solve the problem, and neither is Son of Kyoto
> nor Still More Kyoto.
I'll admit that I've never tried to read the actual Kyoto Protocols and
parse the legal language, but from what I've read I've never been able
to understand why First World nations should be allowed to meet their
emission targets not by investing in carbon sequestration technologies
in their own backyard, but by investing in emission reduction projects
in Third World nations which DON'T have any emission targets to meet.
That would seem to create an incentive for Third World nations to
INCREASE their carbon emissions in order to attract investments from
wealthy First World nations. This makes no sense to me.
Robert A. Woodward
<Tillman-B05ACE...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:
Of course, there is the question on how widespread that was. The
civilizations in the tropics wouldn't have noticed it and I don't
believe there are any records from the Southern Hemisphere. But,
there should be something from China. What was found there?
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Peter D. Tillman
"Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Plus, it's not clear that there really is a problem. Other than, it's
> > getting warmer, just as it did, say, c. 1000 AD.
>
> Of course, there is the question on how widespread that was. The
> civilizations in the tropics wouldn't have noticed it and I don't
> believe there are any records from the Southern Hemisphere. But,
> there should be something from China. What was found there?
The extent of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is still being debated --
my take is that it *seems* to have been +/-worldwide, based on
not-very-convincing evidence.
But then, the current warming isn't really worldwide, either.
Here's a decent (LONG) discussion, with lotsa links:
<http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=767>
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
George W Harris
<Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:
:Here's a decent (LONG) discussion, with lotsa links:
:<http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=767>
So, that's a page run by a mining engineer and
funded by who? The coal and oil industry? With not a
single climatologist in sight? Yeah, that's credible.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
Wesley Taylor
<Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:
>In article <robertaw-00752E...@individual.net>,
> "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Plus, it's not clear that there really is a problem. Other than, it's
>> > getting warmer, just as it did, say, c. 1000 AD.
>>
>> Of course, there is the question on how widespread that was. The
>> civilizations in the tropics wouldn't have noticed it and I don't
>> believe there are any records from the Southern Hemisphere. But,
>> there should be something from China. What was found there?
>
>The extent of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is still being debated --
>my take is that it *seems* to have been +/-worldwide, based on
>not-very-convincing evidence.
>
>But then, the current warming isn't really worldwide, either.
The end of the MWP seems to have covered at least as far as Eastern
North America, based on the events surrounding the eventual failure of
the Greenland colonies.
Peter D. Tillman
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:25:01 -0700, "Peter D. Tillman"
> <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:
>
> :Here's a decent (LONG) discussion [of MWP], with lotsa links:
> :<http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=767>
>
> So, that's a page run by a mining engineer and
> funded by who? The coal and oil industry? With not a
> single climatologist in sight? Yeah, that's credible.
He's trained as a mathematician and statistician, actually
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre>, and pays for his hobby
out of his own pocket.
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, an environmental economist at Guelph
(ONT) have published a number of peer-reviewed articles, most critical
of the dodgy statistics and methodology of Michael Mann and coworkers,
especially their famous/notorious "hockey stick graph" of global temps
vs. time. The wikipedia account is reasonably even-handed.
McIntyre's work is almost all first 'published' in his blog
<http://www.climateaudit.org/> and he seems to be making headway with
younger climatologists. A good thing, too, as most of the older work is
embarrassingly amateurish in its use of statistics, and cavalier in
handling the various paleotemperature proxies.
Anyway, it's interesting to see the debate in progress. The climatology
"establishment" blog <http://www.realclimate.org/> has interesting
stuff too, but is marred by condescending and heavy-handed moderation.
All this imo, of course -- look at both, and decide for yourself.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Professional geologist, amateur paleoclimatology student
Joe Jefferson
>
> Maybe you're right and it's just sheer coincidence that "natural"
> cycles have coincided to make it look as if human industry releasing
> carbon into the atmosphere has resulted in there being lots more carbon
> in the atmosphere than there has ever been before in the history of the
> geological record.
That's not even close to correct. There were several periods in the
planet's history when carbon dioxide levels were a lot higher than they
are today. Around the Paleocene/Eocene boundary, for example,
atmospheric CO2 was five times the present concentration.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.castlejefferson.org
Site Updated November 25th, 2001
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4
Peter D. Tillman
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@castlejefferson.org> wrote:
> Justin Alexander wrote:
> >
> > Maybe you're right and it's just sheer coincidence that "natural"
> > cycles have coincided to make it look as if human industry releasing
> > carbon into the atmosphere has resulted in there being lots more carbon
> > in the atmosphere than there has ever been before in the history of the
> > geological record.
>
> That's not even close to correct. There were several periods in the
> planet's history when carbon dioxide levels were a lot higher than they
> are today. Around the Paleocene/Eocene boundary, for example,
> atmospheric CO2 was five times the present concentration.
Yup. The long-term trend for CO2 has been downward pretty much since we
got free O2 in the atmosphere, though with lots of intermediate ups &
downs. The last big drop was driven by plants developing the C4
(crassulic acid) metabolism, which has driven CO2 levels to the lowest
levels in the planet's history, until the recent, modest industrial rise.
There was a SciAm article on this some years back, by Tom Worsley (sp?)
of Ohio State. Don't know if it's online.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Shawn Wilson
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in message
news:1168576808.9...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> But the other extreme of the debate is similarly engaged in a
> disconnect from rationality. Pretending that this isn't a problem
> doesn't solve anything -- it just makes the problem worse and harder to
> solve when you finally face up to reality.
Uh, global warming ISN'T a problem. it has not nor does it have the
potential to make humanity worse off. it is just another opportunity for
crypto-Marxist Greens to complain about big business.
Peter D. Tillman
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > But the other extreme of the debate is similarly engaged in a
> > disconnect from rationality. Pretending that this isn't a problem
> > doesn't solve anything -- it just makes the problem worse and harder to
> > solve when you finally face up to reality.
>
> Uh, global warming ISN'T a problem. it has not nor does it have the
> potential to make humanity worse off. it is just another opportunity for
> crypto-Marxist Greens to complain about big business.
Um, there have been some pretty wild swings in the climate in the
not-too-distant past, AL at high latitudes --see, forex,
<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/> for the ice-core chapters. For
that matter, things weren't too rosy in California & the SW during the
great Mediaeval droughts. So it would be a really good idea to keep
funding climate research -- and following up to keep the
political-climatologists honest. See http://www.climateaudit.org/ for
one such attempt.
That said, you're perfectly correct that GW has been a godsend for the
Usual Suspects. And their dupes.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Professional geologist, amateur climatology buff
Nancy Lebovitz
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>The reason people are so incredibly skeptical on your points a, b, c,
>and d, is that pretty much EVERY SINGLE TIME something like this has
>come up in the past, the environmental movement and the scientists
>willing to stand with them have been pretty obviously STARTING with
>the "Wealthy nations must chang their ways, difficult/expensive/painful!"
>conclusion, and trying to backfill it with, let's see, air pollution,
>water pollution, pesticide use, acid rain, ozone depletion, and I
>think at one point there was even an incipient ice age in there.
>
>relatively inexpensive and not requiring wholesale changes in the western
>way of life. And they've been wrong in ways that do not the least bit
>suggest, "Oops, honest mistake, we'll get it right next time", but rather,
>"curses, foiled again in our plan to bring down Western civilization!"
The population isn't exactly parallel--people did do something, or possibly
two somethings. One was to make agriculture more efficient, and the other
was to voluntarily have fewer children. China was an exception to the
voluntary aspect, but for all we know, they might have gotten the same
result less painfully by making birth control available.
They didn't have to hand their lives over to the experts.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://nancylebov.livejournal.com
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Justin Alexander
Yes, thank you. That's just the type of disconnect from rationality I
was talking about. Thank you for providing such a concise and potent
example of it.
Shawn Wilson
>> > But the other extreme of the debate is similarly engaged in a
>> > disconnect from rationality. Pretending that this isn't a problem
>> > doesn't solve anything -- it just makes the problem worse and harder to
>> > solve when you finally face up to reality.
>>
>> Uh, global warming ISN'T a problem. it has not nor does it have the
>> potential to make humanity worse off. it is just another opportunity for
>> crypto-Marxist Greens to complain about big business.
>
> Yes, thank you. That's just the type of disconnect from rationality I
> was talking about. Thank you for providing such a concise and potent
> example of it.
I'm sure you would love it if it were true, but it isn't. You have not
provided, nor has anyone else, a cost benefit analysis of global warming.
In other words, you have never made the basic case that it is even bad nor
that, if it is bad, it is worse than the cost of 'dealing' with the
'problem'.
Greenies all want to skip over the actual economics of the situation and
jump right to the 'beat industry over the head' part. Well, as far as the
evidence has shown me, (and I've seen quite a bit) global warming not only
isn't a problem, it is in fact a beneficial thing that should be encouraged.
You want rationality? Then you need to demonstrate some.
Wayne Throop
: You have not provided, nor has anyone else, a cost benefit analysis of
: global warming.
And yet you confidently (and loudly, and frequently) assert
::: "Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com>
::: Uh, global warming ISN'T a problem. it has not nor does it have the
::: potential to make humanity worse off. it is just another
::: opportunity for crypto-Marxist Greens to complain about big
::: business.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Justin Alexander
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in message
> news:1169622630.9...@d71g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > But the other extreme of the debate is similarly engaged in a
> >> > disconnect from rationality. Pretending that this isn't a problem
> >> > doesn't solve anything -- it just makes the problem worse and harder to
> >> > solve when you finally face up to reality.
> >>
> >> Uh, global warming ISN'T a problem. it has not nor does it have the
> >> potential to make humanity worse off. it is just another opportunity for
> >> crypto-Marxist Greens to complain about big business.
> >
> > Yes, thank you. That's just the type of disconnect from rationality I
> > was talking about. Thank you for providing such a concise and potent
> > example of it.
>
> I'm sure you would love it if it were true, but it isn't. You have not
> provided, nor has anyone else, a cost benefit analysis of global warming.
Which is it Shawn? You said that "global warming ISN'T a problem", but
now you claim that nobody knows whether its a problem or not because
cost-benefit analyses haven't been done. You're contradicting yourself.
Of course, you're also lying. A quick Google of "global warming
cost-benefit" trivially turns up a sampling of more than a dozen
cost-benefit analyses done over the past decade. Some of these have
only a local scope (such as the one commissioned by the British
government in 2000), but others attempt a global estimate.
Shawn Wilson
>> I'm sure you would love it if it were true, but it isn't. You have not
>> provided, nor has anyone else, a cost benefit analysis of global warming.
>
> Which is it Shawn? You said that "global warming ISN'T a problem", but
> now you claim that nobody knows whether its a problem or not because
> cost-benefit analyses haven't been done. You're contradicting yourself.
A cost-benefit supporting the idea that global warming is a problem has not
been done, I have done c-b supporting it being a good thing-
Costs rising sea levels from thermal expansion of the oceans- trivial
(magnitude small, time to adapt long). Habitat modification (warmer
climates), costs small, adaption cost trivial (goes on all the time)
Benefits- reduced deserification (warmer = more evaporation from wet areas
and wetter dry areas), benefits large. Longer growing seasons (warmer
weather) benefits large. Expanded eco-system as glaciers melt and
perma-frost melts, benefots large.
It isn't hard.
> Of course, you're also lying. A quick Google of "global warming
> cost-benefit" trivially turns up a sampling of more than a dozen
> cost-benefit analyses done over the past decade.
As a rule all very poor and bent to support the 'crisis' theory.