OT: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument
hank alrich
--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
Soundhaspriority
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1hzvl5r.1ljlfr4opzgssN%walk...@nv.net...
This is classic Game Theory, presented for plain folks. It can be
simplified even further. It means: If we're going to make a mistake, let it
be the one with the least bad consequences. But the "denyers" don't think
this way. They are willing to risk the planet.
Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894
Eeyore
Soundhaspriority wrote:
You assume (a) that the doom-mongers are correct and (b) that we can actually do
anything meaningful about it.
Just looking at the history of doom-mongering, they've always been wrong as far
as I can see.
What I consider to be the 'give-away' is when the consequences start becoming
increasingly hysterical as now seems to the case. The calm scientific outlook
seems to be that it would take > 2000 yrs to melt the Greenland Ice cap even
with a global temp rise of 8 C !
Yet Al Gore thinks it'll happen in 100 yrs. No, I don't believe him, nor the
idea if we don't do something *NOW THIS INSTANT* it will result in horrible and
irreversible consequences.
Graahm
James Perrett
It is interesting that I've seen various arguments about whether climate
change is real in various audio forums recently. Is there something about
audio engineers that makes them particularly cynical about this?
While we certainly don't know exactly what effect we are having on the
Earth's climate, as our understanding of our environment is woefully
incomplete, there's an interesting analysis of what we do know at
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Cheers
James.
Soundhaspriority
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46767668...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1hzvl5r.1ljlfr4opzgssN%walk...@nv.net...
>> > http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
>> >
>> > --
>> > ha
>> > Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
>>
>> This is classic Game Theory, presented for plain folks. It can be
>> simplified even further. It means: If we're going to make a mistake, let
>> it
>> be the one with the least bad consequences. But the "denyers" don't think
>> this way. They are willing to risk the planet.
>
> You assume (a) that the doom-mongers are correct and (b) that we can
> actually do
> anything meaningful about it.
>
Perhaps someone else can explain it to you.
Chris Whealy
validity of the Game Theory argument is based on there being some
credibility to the doom-monger's argument. Graham then pointed out that
doom-mongers have history of being wrong.
Ergo, the argument has no more historical basis for being correct than
any of the other "End-Of-World" scenarios that have cropped up over the
last thousand or so years.
Chris W
--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---
Don Pearce
It is NOT classic game theory, it is politics. If it were game theory
he would have presented all of the options, not merely those that
promoted his case. He was missing at least one row and one column. And
having presented all the options, he would have filled in the boxes
properly - ie those with the same outcome would have contained the
same info. In his case he put recession in one, and a smiley face in
the other, for identical outcome.
In short, he presented a crock - and shame on you for falling for it.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Soundhaspriority
"Chris Whealy" <moc...@ylaehw.sirhc> wrote in message
news:f56b9p$pg9$2...@news.sap-ag.de...
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46767668...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1hzvl5r.1ljlfr4opzgssN%walk...@nv.net...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ha
>>>>> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
>>>>>
>>>> This is classic Game Theory, presented for plain folks. It can be
>>>> simplified even further. It means: If we're going to make a mistake,
>>>> let it
>>>> be the one with the least bad consequences. But the "denyers" don't
>>>> think
>>>> this way. They are willing to risk the planet.
>>>>
>>> You assume (a) that the doom-mongers are correct and (b) that we can
>>> actually do
>>> anything meaningful about it.
>>>
>>>
>> No, I don't. This is classic Game Theory.
>> Perhaps someone else can explain it to you.
>>
>>
> No, Graham does understand it. He was just pointing out that the whole
> validity of the Game Theory argument is based on there being some
> credibility to the doom-monger's argument.
No, it is not. Game theory does not embrace the word "credibility", which
refers to the evaluation of human sources. Game theory takes as inputs
probabilities and costs.
Graham then pointed out that
> doom-mongers have history of being wrong.
>
Does history imply reliability? What probability are you willing to accept
for the doomsday scenario? 1%? Perhaps 0.1% ? What is the number you put on
it?
> Ergo, the argument has no more historical basis for being correct than any
> of the other "End-Of-World" scenarios that have cropped up over the last
> thousand or so years.
>
"Historical basis" is not a term used by game theory. And BTW, the end of
the world happens only once.
Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894
Don Pearce
<now...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>"Historical basis" is not a term used by game theory. And BTW, the end of
>the world happens only once.
Whatever happens, may be sure that the world will be just fine. On the
other hand, a catastrophe that removed 99% of the human population
would indeed be a good thing.
Soundhaspriority
"James Perrett" <James....@noc.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:op.tt4j8...@news.nerc.ac.uk...
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:28:09 +0100, hank alrich <walk...@nv.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It is interesting that I've seen various arguments about whether climate
> change is real in various audio forums recently. Is there something about
> audio engineers that makes them particularly cynical about this?
>
circumscribed area. Their abilities to concentrate their energies in a small
domain contributes to professional excellence. But with years of
concentration, they lose their ability to think and analyze in domains where
the risks and costs are much higher. The failure of a piece of audio
equipment may wreck a day, or even hurt an individual, but it is a contained
cost. These people are not accustomed to thinking in domains where the
costs cannot be contained.
> While we certainly don't know exactly what effect we are having on the
> Earth's climate, as our understanding of our environment is woefully
> incomplete, there's an interesting analysis of what we do know at
> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>
> Cheers
>
> James.
James, my sympathies are with you.
Eeyore
Don Pearce wrote:
> "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
>
> >"Historical basis" is not a term used by game theory. And BTW, the end of
> >the world happens only once.
>
> Whatever happens, may be sure that the world will be just fine. On the
> other hand, a catastrophe that removed 99% of the human population
> would indeed be a good thing.
Just reducing the human population would fix the alleged problem.
However...... Since the ice caps *aren't* melting (at least not in any unusual
way) ......
Graham
Eeyore
James Perrett wrote:
> While we certainly don't know exactly what effect we are having on the
> Earth's climate, as our understanding of our environment is woefully
> incomplete, there's an interesting analysis of what we do know at
> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
That's an 'analysis' that presumes AGW is correct.
Not much of an analysis at all if only presents 'one side'.
Furthermore it seems the CO2 numbers have been frigged.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor
knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The
modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air
indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11]
(Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to
demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A
study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in
Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and
9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air
concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/call2.jpg
Graham
Frank Stearns
>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:46767668...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>
>>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1hzvl5r.1ljlfr4opzgssN%walk...@nv.net...
>>> > http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
>>> >
>>> simplified even further. It means: If we're going to make a mistake, let
>>> it
>>> be the one with the least bad consequences. But the "denyers" don't think
>>> this way. They are willing to risk the planet.
>>
>> You assume (a) that the doom-mongers are correct and (b) that we can
>> actually do
>> anything meaningful about it.
>>
>No, I don't. This is classic Game Theory.
>Perhaps someone else can explain it to you.
How about a little scientific thought in the context of deep time?
Check out "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism",
by Chistopher Horner, Regnery Press, 2007.
Before screaming right-wing denials, check out the several hundred citations in
this book, or just thumb through it. Rather eye-opening.
One of the most ironic themes is that the SAME PEOPLE a mere 20-30 years ago were
hand-wringing about man-caused global COOLING and all the HAVOC that would cause
just around the corner if something massive wasn't done.
Bad science, frothy fear press, and Big Money (grants to enviro elite
"scientists" and folks like ADM making big bucks on net-energy wasting schemes such
as ethanol) are handmaidens to man-caused **hysteria**.
Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--
.
Eeyore
Frank Stearns wrote:
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.org> writes:
> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:1hzvl5r.1ljlfr4opzgssN%walk...@nv.net...
> >>> > http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
> >>> >
> >>> This is classic Game Theory, presented for plain folks. It can be
> >>> simplified even further. It means: If we're going to make a mistake, let
> >>> it be the one with the least bad consequences. But the "denyers" don't think
> >>> this way. They are willing to risk the planet.
> >>
> >> You assume (a) that the doom-mongers are correct and (b) that we can
> >> actually do anything meaningful about it.
> >>
> >No, I don't. This is classic Game Theory.
> >Perhaps someone else can explain it to you.
>
> How about a little scientific thought in the context of deep time?
>
> Check out "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism",
> by Chistopher Horner, Regnery Press, 2007.
>
> Before screaming right-wing denials, check out the several hundred citations in
> this book, or just thumb through it. Rather eye-opening.
>
> One of the most ironic themes is that the SAME PEOPLE a mere 20-30 years ago were
> hand-wringing about man-caused global COOLING and all the HAVOC that would cause
> just around the corner if something massive wasn't done.
>
> Bad science, frothy fear press, and Big Money (grants to enviro elite
> "scientists" and folks like ADM making big bucks on net-energy wasting schemes such
> as ethanol) are handmaidens to man-caused **hysteria**.
It's worth pointing out that ethanol as a fuel is only an energy wasting process in the
hands of ADM. Using *corn* to make ethanol for fuel use is a fairly daft idea all round
but it does help use up surpluses.
Graham
Scott Dorsey
>It's worth pointing out that ethanol as a fuel is only an energy wasting process in the
>hands of ADM. Using *corn* to make ethanol for fuel use is a fairly daft idea all round
>but it does help use up surpluses.
This is true. The good part about it, though, is that ethanol is effective
at preventing detonation so it winds up replacing MTBE in gasoline. Even
if it's substantially less efficient to make, the fact that it reduces the
possibilities of MTBE contamination is good news. And MTBE itself was
probably an improvement on tetraethyl lead from an environmental perspective.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Don Pearce
But of course if you want to use it in a CO2-friendly manner, what you
do is plough the surplus back in.
Soundhaspriority
>
>
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
>>
>> >"Historical basis" is not a term used by game theory. And BTW, the end
>> >of
>> >the world happens only once.
>>
>> Whatever happens, may be sure that the world will be just fine. On the
>> other hand, a catastrophe that removed 99% of the human population
>> would indeed be a good thing.
>
> Just reducing the human population would fix the alleged problem.
>
control, and perhaps even a one-child-per-family rule, but "reducing the
human population by catastrophe" implies great evil of thought.
Let's not play the usenet game. Just because Don said it, and you seem to
line up with it, doesn't mean you're serious. Are you just making a nasty
joke? There's no harm in that. But wishing ill to strangers is evil.
Don Pearce
Ridiculous. There is no evil in catastrophe. It is one of the more
useful population moderation methods. You probably didn't notice, but
at no point in my statement did I suggest that it should happen to
"the others". I would be content to take my chance alongside everybody
else.
Trying to limit the birthrate through legislation is almost laughably
naive.
Six String Stu
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:jdednZP9opVY9-vb...@giganews.com...
Yet I can't believe he actually has one brain cell that hasn't already been
corrupted by chemicals. I mean come on, look what he keeps on the shelf
behind him in the opening. A pepsi drinker? pfft!
Brian Running
> any of the other "End-Of-World" scenarios that have cropped up over the
> last thousand or so years.
In the last thousand years, end-of-world fears were, for the most part,
raised by either religious nuts or by scientists. The scientists were
largely warning of nuclear end-of-world scenarios, such as Carl Sagan
and the "nuclear winter" scenario. Do you doubt that the world could
end by full-scale nuclear war? Do you think that science-based warnings
of observable phenomena are overruled by the delusional rantings of
religious fanatics?
You'd better review your historical bases.
Joseph Ashwood
news:1hzvl5r.1ljlfr4opzgssN%walk...@nv.net...
> http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
I do find the argument interesting, and the holes in it gaping, however I do
agree with the changes that should be made. To me it is a simple matter of
all the changes that are being asked for are generally considerd good
things, even without the global warming debate. Reducing/eliminating
emissions of vehilcles reduces/eliminates smog substantially improving the
air we breath. Generating power more cleanly again improves the air we
breath. Building factories in such a way that they are inherently clean
creates all around better working conditions for the employees and improves
the air we breath. Avoiding water pollution improves the water we drink. I
am willing to pay a premium for all of these.
Incidentally, I do believe that humans are largely responsible for an
ongoing climate change event, and I believe that these efforts and others of
similar general good will offer a great deal of progress on this.
Joe
soundhaspriority
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Come to think of it, I have been wishing ill on strangers all my life.
That's probably why I sued Drexel University trying to get my degree after
spending ten years there.
But then again, I AM laughably naīve!
Soundhaspriority
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:xWBdi.33589$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Brian,
The phrases "broad minded", and "narrow minded" were devised to refer to
people whose minds are constricted, so that they cannot range over all that
is possible. We understand that the intelligence of cats and dogs is
specialized, so that they are very good at what they do, but they have zero
awareness outside of that. People are similarly specialized. For this
reason, it is impossible to approach the Grahams and the Dons by game
theory, or other rational argument. Their minds are made rigid by the
instinctual desire to protect their property, which in this case, extends to
their ways of lives.
I cannot account for the genocidal impulse of Don Pearce. It seems to be
a modification of the Final Solution, replacing the evil of man with the
evil of nature. We must embrace life in all its forms.
Soundhaspriority
"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:137dii6...@corp.supernews.com...
the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption has
nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
Agent 86
> It's worth pointing out that ethanol as a fuel is only an energy wasting
> process in the hands of ADM. Using *corn* to make ethanol for fuel use is
> a fairly daft idea all round but it does help use up surpluses.
True enough, but what the hell else are you going to do with ethanol made
from corn?
I know!!!! Let's put it in a bottle with a fancy black label on it and sell
it to rednecks!!! We'll tell 'em it's whiskey. If anybody ever figures
out it's just distilled hog feed, we'll laugh at them and say there's
no "E" in whisky.
Richard Crowley
> I'm sorry, Frank, but the issue is bigger than that. With any threat come
> the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption has
> nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
Rather naieve to think that there aren't profiteers and manipulators
in the GlobalWarming Camp. Algore himself leaps to mind.
I dare you to go to YouTube and watch the whole (~90 minutes)
documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
Eeyore
Brian Running wrote:
> >Ergo, the argument has no more historical basis for being correct than
> > any of the other "End-Of-World" scenarios that have cropped up over the
> > last thousand or so years.
>
> In the last thousand years, end-of-world fears were, for the most part,
> raised by either religious nuts or by scientists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/22/newton_2060.shtml
A BBC documentary uncovers, for the first time, the original manuscript where
Newton forecast the date of the end of the world.
Newton, the father of modern mathematics, dedicated a large part of his life to
a quest to decode the Bible which he believed to be the word of God.
For over 50 years, he studied the Bible trying to unravel God's secret laws of
the Universe.
He was fanatical in his quest to discover the date for the Second Coming of
Christ and the end of the world.
Scholars have spent years trying to unravel Newton's writings on the Book of
Revelation to establish when he thought the apocalypse was coming.
For the first time, Newton: The Dark Heretic reveals the date he forecast is
within many people's lifetimes - 2060.
Eeyore
Soundhaspriority wrote:
> reason, it is impossible to approach the Grahams and the Dons by game
> theory, or other rational argument. Their minds are made rigid by the
> instinctual desire to protect their property, which in this case, extends to
> their ways of lives.
Hilarious.
I was originally fairly taken in by the global warming crowd.
As their predictions became ever more hysterical I reviewed my position and
found a wealth of contrary data. Actually, the critical turning point for me was
when I queried some aspect of the received wisdom about AGW and got a 'you must
be stupid not to know that' type response from a 'warmingist'.
Why exactly is that Al Gore say we must do 'something' within *ten years* anyway
? Is this some 'magic date' beyond which we're doomed if we don't do what he
tells us to ? This is religion not science.
Graham
Eeyore
Soundhaspriority wrote:
> I'm sorry, Frank, but the issue is bigger than that. With any threat come
> the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption has
> nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
I'm sure there'll be tons of corruption in 'green solutions'.
Graham
Eeyore
Agent 86 wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > It's worth pointing out that ethanol as a fuel is only an energy wasting
> > process in the hands of ADM. Using *corn* to make ethanol for fuel use is
> > a fairly daft idea all round but it does help use up surpluses.
>
> True enough, but what the hell else are you going to do with ethanol made
> from corn?
Drink it ?
> I know!!!! Let's put it in a bottle with a fancy black label on it and sell
> it to rednecks!!! We'll tell 'em it's whiskey. If anybody ever figures
> out it's just distilled hog feed, we'll laugh at them and say there's
> no "E" in whisky.
You can get some decent flavours to add to pure alcohol.
Graham
Richard Crowley
> I was originally fairly taken in by the global warming crowd.
>
> As their predictions became ever more hysterical I reviewed my position
> and
> found a wealth of contrary data. Actually, the critical turning point for
> me was
> when I queried some aspect of the received wisdom about AGW and got a 'you
> must
> be stupid not to know that' type response from a 'warmingist'.
>
> Why exactly is that Al Gore say we must do 'something' within *ten years*
> anyway
> ? Is this some 'magic date' beyond which we're doomed if we don't do what
> he
> tells us to ? This is religion not science.
I disagree. It is not as civilized as religion. It is pure politics, devoid
of coherent science. If it weren't "Global Warming", Algore would be
out there stumping for some other "progressive" cause du jour.
Soundhaspriority
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:5dog13F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
>> I'm sorry, Frank, but the issue is bigger than that. With any threat come
>> the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption has
>> nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
>
> Rather naieve to think that there aren't profiteers and manipulators
> in the GlobalWarming Camp. Algore himself leaps to mind.
>
> I dare you to go to YouTube and watch the whole (~90 minutes)
> documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
>
I don't have 90 minutes to listen to what I know to be true: that within
both camps, there are people distorting the argument, some out of genunine
fear, some for power, and some for greed. This has always been true with any
issue.
Game Theory teaches us that the more dire the consequences of a possibility,
the smaller the possibility we need be concerned about. But for some reason,
many people have a disconnect about the Planet, as opposed to their Child.
They are willing to allow levels of risk to the planet that they would not
allow their child.
Rich, if you have had a child, you have confronted this. A child is exposed
to hazards, about which each of which you ask:
1. What is the chance it will help him grow?
2. What is the chance it will maim him, or end his life?
When you were a young father, you probably thought about these things. At
what age did you allow your child to cross the street? To walk on the
shoulder of a road against traffic? To climb tall trees? What were the
percentages, and how did you decide what to allow your child to do?
The Planet is as important to me as my child, because it is all my child
has. If there is a one percent possibility that the worst predictions of the
wamers could come true, then Game Theory directs me to mitigate this. So I
live green. I drive a small car, and later I will drive a more efficient
one. I combine errands. I do not drive for pleasure. I installed a highly
efficient furnace. I will use my power as a consumer to work in the green
direction.
Soundhaspriority
Theory suggests is the more significant danger.
Eeyore
Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" wrote
>
> > I dare you to go to YouTube and watch the whole (~90 minutes)
> > documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
>
> I don't have 90 minutes to listen to what I know to be true: that within
> both camps, there are people distorting the argument, some out of genunine
> fear, some for power, and some for greed. This has always been true with any
> issue.
There's one argument that trumps them all though.
The AGW case is based on the theory that CO2 from human activity is the culprit.
If their CO2 numbers are seriously wrong then the whole case for AGW falls like
a house of cards.
Now read this..... and it won't take even 9 minutes of your precious time.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
I want to look into this further but haven't got round to it yet.
Graham
Richard Crowley
<Drivel about "game theory" snipped for sanity.>
You need to study more of the actual facts of the case and
spend less time theorizing about games. This is not a game.
There are serious issues at stake. Many of them affect the
less priveleged parts of our planet. Perhaps you don't care
about them. but I do.
Eeyore
Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Rather naieve to think that there aren't profiteers and manipulators
> > in the GlobalWarming Camp. Algore himself leaps to mind.
>
> There undoubtedly are. Please reread.
This one's a goodie !
It gets worse and more blatant. As mentioned by McKitrick
(http://tinyurl.com/ahmmr) in 1995 David Deming, a geoscientist at the
University of Oklahoma, published a study in Science that demonstrated the
technique by generating a 150-year climate history for North America. Here, in
Deming’s own words, is what happened next. With the publication of the article
in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists
working on climate change.
They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service
of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major
person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an
astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.
This behavior is not science. It is the high school equivalent of “dry-labbing”
chemistry classes. It is not worthy of any scientific discussions. There has
been enormous pressure on many groups and scientists to conform to the IPCC
flawed version of global temperature history.
Across the board there has been a loss of integrity among journalists,
environmentalists, Hollywood, and certain scientists and research laboratories
that step all over themselves in competition for the billions being dubiously
spent in government support of global warming research.
There is plenty to be questioned all across the board, and there are still large
unknowns in the very complex world of climate science. Good, verifiable,
replicable climate data, not biased computer models should settle the disputes,
not ad hominem attacks, and not data fudging, not totalitarian edicts.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?4c7b8e3b-d0af-4106-bef6-c9a74b10f154
Eeyore
Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sorry, Frank, but the issue is bigger than that. With any threat come
> >> the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption has
> >> nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
> >
> > I'm sure there'll be tons of corruption in 'green solutions'.
>
> I'm sure there will. But I'm not going to allow that to overshadow what Game
> Theory suggests is the more significant danger.
If the AGW theory is correct (and I doubt it is) it seems to me that we would be
able to do too little to prevent long term climate change, short of reducing our
numbers to below 3 bn and going back to a largely non-industrial society.
What is it you're afraid of anyway ? Manhattan isn't going to drown in your
lifetime or for many generations yet.
Graham
Eeyore
Richard Crowley wrote:
I saw a documentary a while back about health care in Africa The local doctor
was bemoaning the fact that he was only 'allowed' by western donors, a solar
cell to power his electricity needs and that the small amount of power it
produced was holding back local health provision. I think a problem was that
the power was unable to keep a fridge cold enough to keep vaccines long term.
Graham
hank alrich
> The calm scientific outlook
> seems to be that it would take > 2000 yrs to melt the Greenland Ice cap even
> with a global temp rise of 8 C !
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20733
Recent information coming from research in Greenland suggests it is
losing its ice shield much more rapidly than we realized.
hank alrich
> It is NOT classic game theory, it is politics. If it were game theory
> he would have presented all of the options, not merely those that
> promoted his case.
He didn't claim to have presented all the options, and he urged others
to put together their own charts.
hank alrich
> One of the most ironic themes is that the SAME PEOPLE a mere 20-30 years
> ago were hand-wringing about man-caused global COOLING and all the HAVOC
> that would cause just around the corner if something massive wasn't done.
James Hansen has been on global warming for decades, and it was
predicted in the 1800's based on fossil fuels consumption.
Examination of the climatic record shows that between long, in human
time, periods of stasis, there are extreme oscillations. And yes, brief
ice ages alternate with hot spells, until relative stability returns for
however long.
_Gaia's Revenge_, James Lovelock
There are nearly a billion cars on the planet now, nevermind the rest of
our machinery. What is the temperature of the air entering them prior to
combustion, and what is the temperature at the exhaust pipes?
We have traded flora for asphalt. It's an old story and no
"civilization" has survived the loss of its energy sources, nor escaped
the consequences of its environmental depredations.
_The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight_, Thom Hartmann
hank alrich
> However...... Since the ice caps *aren't* melting (at least not in any unusual
> way) ......
Eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5344208.stm
Eeyore
hank alrich wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However...... Since the ice caps *aren't* melting (at least not in any unusual
> > way) ......
>
> Eh?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26ad56
Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster, a Study Finds
*SEA ICE* melting does not affect sea level.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm
Arctic sea ice 'faces rapid melt'
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5344208.stm
A Nasa satellite has documented startling changes in Arctic sea ice cover between
2004 and 2005.
Now find a source that says the *ICE CAPS* are melting. SEA ICE is entirely
irrelevant. Only the melting of land bound ice will influence sea level.
Here's a more rational recent one.
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland's largest
glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend.
The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado's National
Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics
Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into
the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.
But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of
discharge.
Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in
assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady
upward trajectory.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=upiUPI-20070213-100336-9529R&show_article=1
And how about this ?
Recent ice sheet growth in the interior of Greenland
Greenland's ice cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions
of a thaw triggered by global warming,
Johannessen, Ola M., Khvorostovsky, K., Miles, M. W., Bobylev, L. P. (2005) Recent
ice sheet growth in the interior of Greenland. Science 310: 1013-1016
Recent growth in the interior regions of the Greenland Ice Sheet is reported by a
Norwegian-led team of climate scientists. The growth is estimated to be about 6 cm
per year during the study period, 1992–2003. They derive and analyse the longest
continuous dataset of satellite altimeter observations of Greenland Ice Sheet
elevations by combining tens of millions of data points from European Space Agency
(ESA) satellites, called ERS-1 and ERS-2, and NASA. This allowed the scientists to
determine the spatial patterns of surface elevation variations and changes over an
11-year period between 1992 and 2003.
http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?kat=2&id=170&lang=2
Ever wondered if some ppl are lying to you ?
Graham
Eeyore
hank alrich wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The calm scientific outlook
> > seems to be that it would take > 2000 yrs to melt the Greenland Ice cap even
> > with a global temp rise of 8 C !
>
> http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20733
Puh-leeeze ! That a journalist's report designed to sell newspapers by creating
fear. (FUD)
Truthout also believes that the Pentagon organised 9/11.
> Recent information coming from research in Greenland suggests it is
> losing its ice shield much more rapidly than we realized.
Where did you get that from ? Another 'journalist' ?
A recent Norwegian study says exactly the very reverse. These are climate
scientists not journalists and this is on a valid climate science site not some
loony conspiracy theory site.
http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?kat=2&id=170&lang=2
" Recent ice sheet growth in the interior of Greenland "
Graham
Eeyore
hank alrich wrote:
> Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> > One of the most ironic themes is that the SAME PEOPLE a mere 20-30 years
> > ago were hand-wringing about man-caused global COOLING and all the HAVOC
> > that would cause just around the corner if something massive wasn't done.
>
> James Hansen has been on global warming for decades, and it was
> predicted in the 1800's based on fossil fuels consumption.
>
> Examination of the climatic record shows that between long, in human
> time, periods of stasis, there are extreme oscillations. And yes, brief
> ice ages alternate with hot spells, until relative stability returns for
> however long.
And non-extreme fluctuations.
See Medieval Warm Period.
Graham
Soundhaspriority
Agent 86
> *SEA ICE* melting does not affect sea level.
Think about that for awhile, and then tell us why it's wrong.
Here's a hint:
1 - At anywhere approaching terrestrial pressure, salt precipitates out of
water well before water freezes.
2 - Frozen fresh water floats substantially higher in sea water than it does
in fresh water.
Six String Stu
trend.
Sure the last ice age was just another dip on the overall global temperture
chart and the midevil warm spell was a rise. it helped to bring about the
black plauge just like the last ice age helped to kill the dinosaurs.
Yet I wouldn't pin my thoughts on just the last fifty years or so, even a
stuffed jackass should be able to see that.
The ice cores taken from the deep ice show that we have been warming
steadialy since the use of fossil fuels became more prevelant. And the
weather patterns have certianly been getting more and more unpredictable. Is
this just another trend?
Eeyore
Six String Stu wrote:
> The ice cores taken from the deep ice show that we have been warming
> steadialy since the use of fossil fuels became more prevelant.
Actually, ice cores tell us absolutely nothing about temperature.
> And the weather patterns have certianly been getting more and more
> unpredictable.
How do you *KNOW* ? Compared to .. ????
You've just fallen for the usual half-truths and misrepresentations.
Graham
Eeyore
Agent 86 wrote:
The difference is insignificant.
Graham
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>Examination of the climatic record shows that between long, in human
>time, periods of stasis, there are extreme oscillations. And yes, brief
>ice ages alternate with hot spells, until relative stability returns for
>however long.
This is the interesting bit, and the one almost completely
misunderstood on both sides of the shoutin' match.
We're hardwired to think in linear models and are completely
totally no-exceptions no-holidays not-even-you-not-even-me
incapable of *believing* a non-linear model of our world.
Earth's climate is the classic non-linear process, but we
continue to argue about it as if it were linear. That's bad
JuJu.
Our climate has jumped into and out of Ice Ages, for example,
in less than a century many times in the past. (The Ice Age
example is mentioned because it's so well documented; other
step changes don't leave such nice "permanent" Arf records).
Non-linear systems, lately called "chaotic", are pretty robust
for smaller perturbations, but then jump to the next "stable"
state if pushed too far. This is the dangerous bit.
Folks who quite rightly consider themselves rational seem to
get all bent about this issue, and I wonder if it's because
they're offended by the non-linearity. Might explain the
audio tie-in. Arf.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Agent 86
Maybe, maybe not. My suspicion is it's more significant than the difference
between Behringer and Soundcraft.
Ron Capik
> < ....snip.. >
>
> Why exactly is that Al Gore say we must do 'something' within *ten years* anyway
> ? Is this some 'magic date' beyond which we're doomed if we don't do what he
> tells us to ? This is religion not science.
>
> Graham
I do believe the key to that 'magic date' has much to do with the political
shelf life of said Al Gore.
[YMMV]
Later...
Ron Capik
--
William Sommerwerck
years ago -- began moderating roughly at the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution. This is strong evidence (but not proof) that the current warming
is caused by human activity.
Eeyore
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> Our climate has jumped into and out of Ice Ages, for example,
> in less than a century many times in the past.
Cite please.
Graham
Eeyore
Agent 86 wrote:
Far less.
Actually, this article says that melting freshwater ice actually adds 2.6% more
than its own volume but if all the sea ice in the world melted it would add only
4cm (1.57") to sea level.
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html
There's a lot more than 2.6% difference between Behringer and Soundcraft for
sure.
Graham
Eeyore
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Uh ? What half-assed nonsense !
You seriously think that a tiny bit of industrial activity in England mainly
warmed the entire world up ?
In actual fact during Dicken's time when the Industrial Revolution was quite
well established it was still common for the Thames to freeze over. There was an
actual drop in temp during the period 1800-1900.
There are some total cranks around for sure.
Graham
Chris Hornbeck
I'd argue instead that *none* of that part of the discussion
is at all significant, because climate isn't a linear model.
A decent analogy from electronics would be of an amplifier
with multiple nested positive and negative feedback loops,
each including their own distorted and delayed losses,
yada-yada. Climate has negative feedback loops like plants
and termites and the Himalayan mountain range and positive
feedback loops like plants and termites and ocean water.
Most of Earth's CO2 is stored in the oceans. Raise the ocean
temperature and more CO2 will boil out. More boiled-out CO2
will contribute to increased ocean temperatures. Positive
feedback. Ferzample.
Some climatic variables have historically been amazingly
robust, for example atmospheric oxygen has been constant
within a very few percent for billions of years, ever since
Earth's truly great cat's-ass-trophy when blue-green algae
appeared and poisoned the atmosphere with free oxygen,
killing almost everything else big enough to complain.
Others, like temperature, have varied enough to matter to
a species of six billion and rising, trapped here on the
surface.
Frank Stearns
What? Even today's man-made GHG output is swamped by volcanic and other natural
occurrences, yet you're saying that a comparatively tiny industrial output started
global warming 500 years ago? (Heck, G. Bush wasn't even in office then. Oh right.
No USA, either.)
So what caused the several cooling and warming ice-age cycles that predate "modern"
man?
What impact does solar activity have? (Lots, actually, as other planets in the solar
system are also warming a little bit, apparently.)
Why, out of 24 primary climate models, have the Warmies chosen one of the least
reliable but most extreme? (Why, grant money, sky-is-falling books, and news
sales, of course.)
On that theme, why do the models perform so poorly and so differently? (That is,
plug in historic data and watch none of them work very well.)
Why, since 1998, have temps leveled and actually fallen a little?
Why have some ice fields INCREASED?
Contrary to the dire, end-of-days predictions in 1995 immediately after Katrina, why
was 2006 such a quiet hurricane season?
It goes on and on.
Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--
.
Chris Hornbeck
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Our climate has jumped into and out of Ice Ages, for example,
>> in less than a century many times in the past.
>
>Cite please.
I work for a living and so don't have much time to comb the net,
but if you're really interested you might look into core samples,
from which this originates, or, if that's too obscure I could,
time permitting, provide you with book titles. But it's not a
secret, and really shouldn't be too surprising.
Please don't take my comments as in any way personal. We're all
the same species and we're all wired the same way. Non-linear
models are totally foreign to all humans (and by extension, all
mammals). You and several other bright and interesting people
bristle at the somewhat touchy-feely linear modeling offered in the
popular press. Not surprising.
But it don't mean there ain't a gorilla in the room, 's all I'm
sayin'.
Eeyore
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:06:49 GMT, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Our climate has jumped into and out of Ice Ages, for example,
> >> in less than a century many times in the past.
> >
> >Cite please.
>
> I work for a living and so don't have much time to comb the net,
> but if you're really interested you might look into core samples,
> from which this originates, or, if that's too obscure I could,
> time permitting, provide you with book titles. But it's not a
> secret, and really shouldn't be too surprising.
Your idea of a century to enter an ice age doesn't seem to fit the data.
More like several thousands of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Graham
hank alrich
> "Eeyore" wrote ...
> > I was originally fairly taken in by the global warming crowd.
> >
> > As their predictions became ever more hysterical I reviewed my position
> > and
> > found a wealth of contrary data. Actually, the critical turning point for
> > me was
> > when I queried some aspect of the received wisdom about AGW and got a 'you
> > must
> > be stupid not to know that' type response from a 'warmingist'.
> >
> > Why exactly is that Al Gore say we must do 'something' within *ten years*
> > anyway
> > ? Is this some 'magic date' beyond which we're doomed if we don't do what
> > he
> > tells us to ? This is religion not science.
>
> I disagree. It is not as civilized as religion. It is pure politics, devoid
> of coherent science. If it weren't "Global Warming", Algore would be
> out there stumping for some other "progressive" cause du jour.
You must be very proud to be regressive.
news to me
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:zOudnYjDU8kVYOvb...@giganews.com...
>
> "Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
> news:137dii6...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.org> writes:
>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:46767668...@hotmail.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1hzvl5r.1ljlfr4opzgssN%walk...@nv.net...
>>>>> > http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
>>>>> >
>>>>> This is classic Game Theory, presented for plain folks. It can be
>>>>> simplified even further. It means: If we're going to make a mistake,
>>>>> let
>>>>> it
>>>>> be the one with the least bad consequences. But the "denyers" don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> this way. They are willing to risk the planet.
>>>>
>>>> You assume (a) that the doom-mongers are correct and (b) that we can
>>>> actually do
>>>> anything meaningful about it.
>>>>
>>>No, I don't. This is classic Game Theory.
>>>Perhaps someone else can explain it to you.
>>
>> How about a little scientific thought in the context of deep time?
>>
>> Check out "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and
>> Environmentalism",
>> by Chistopher Horner, Regnery Press, 2007.
>>
>> Before screaming right-wing denials, check out the several hundred
>> citations in
>> this book, or just thumb through it. Rather eye-opening.
>>
>> One of the most ironic themes is that the SAME PEOPLE a mere 20-30 years
>> ago were
>> hand-wringing about man-caused global COOLING and all the HAVOC that
>> would cause
>> just around the corner if something massive wasn't done.
>>
>> Bad science, frothy fear press, and Big Money (grants to enviro elite
>> "scientists" and folks like ADM making big bucks on net-energy wasting
>> schemes such
>> as ethanol) are handmaidens to man-caused **hysteria**.
>>
>> Frank Stearns
>> Mobile Audio
>>
> I'm sorry, Frank, but the issue is bigger than that. With any threat come
> the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption has
> nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
Chris Hornbeck
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Our climate has jumped into and out of Ice Ages, for example,
>> >> in less than a century many times in the past.
>Your idea of a century to enter an ice age doesn't seem to fit the data.
>
>More like several thousands of years.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Thank God for Wikipedia so we don't have to read any more.
The "Holocene Temperature Variations" diagragm looks pretty
quick to me, but how can I judge these simplifications?
That's what books are for. Unfortunately, this web page is
beyond me.
What does it mean?
All I know *for sure* is that *everybody's* internal mental
model is *WRONG*. You and me are both specifically included.
This issue may finally be one of Humility and Hubris. The
JuJu will decide the case, as always.
hank alrich
> Your idea of a century to enter an ice age doesn't seem to fit the data.
_Gaia's Revenge_, James Lovelock.
Eeyore
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:28:28 GMT, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Our climate has jumped into and out of Ice Ages, for example,
> >> >> in less than a century many times in the past.
>
> >Your idea of a century to enter an ice age doesn't seem to fit the data.
> >
> >More like several thousands of years.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
>
> Thank God for Wikipedia so we don't have to read any more.
>
> The "Holocene Temperature Variations" diagragm looks pretty
> quick to me, but how can I judge these simplifications?
> That's what books are for. Unfortunately, this web page is
> beyond me.
>
> What does it mean?
The red curve is volume of ice and the x axis is in thousands of years.
Look at the red curve and you'll see an absence of any rapid rate of volume of
ice vs time. That kills the 'century to enter an ice age' idea stone dead.
Graham
Eeyore
hank alrich wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Your idea of a century to enter an ice age doesn't seem to fit the data.
>
> _Gaia's Revenge_, James Lovelock.
What's that supposed to mean ?
Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock
argues that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few
breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate
remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
Graham
Peter A. Stoll
news:4677A022...@hotmail.com:
>
> The red curve is volume of ice and the x axis is in thousands of
> years.
>
> Look at the red curve and you'll see an absence of any rapid rate of
> volume of ice vs time. That kills the 'century to enter an ice age'
> idea stone dead.
>
> Graham
>
I think he meant the temperature drop. In looking at ice volume you are to
some degree looking at an integration over time--certainly not a prompt
indicator of current mean temperature.
I won't contribute any numbers myself, as I don't remember them well
enough, but I do recall that the historic temperature record (one main
source being ice cores from Greenland) indicates remarkably fast changes).
Eeyore
"Peter A. Stoll" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > The red curve is volume of ice and the x axis is in thousands of
> > years.
> >
> > Look at the red curve and you'll see an absence of any rapid rate of
> > volume of ice vs time. That kills the 'century to enter an ice age'
> > idea stone dead.
>
>
> I think he meant the temperature drop. In looking at ice volume you are to
> some degree looking at an integration over time--certainly not a prompt
> indicator of current mean temperature.
>
> I won't contribute any numbers myself, as I don't remember them well
> enough, but I do recall that the historic temperature record (one main
> source being ice cores from Greenland) indicates remarkably fast changes).
Well, temperature is shown on the blue curve and I still don't see massively
rapid change. How reliable those data are who knows ?
Graham
Bill Ruys
>> "Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
>>> I'm sorry, Frank, but the issue is bigger than that. With any threat
>>> come the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption
>>> has nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
>>
>> in the GlobalWarming Camp. Algore himself leaps to mind.
>>
> There undoubtedly are. Please reread.
>
>
>> I dare you to go to YouTube and watch the whole (~90 minutes)
>> documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
>>
> I don't have 90 minutes to listen to what I know to be true: that within
> both camps, there are people distorting the argument, some out of genunine
> fear, some for power, and some for greed. This has always been true with
> any issue.
>
> Game Theory teaches us that the more dire the consequences of a
> possibility, the smaller the possibility we need be concerned about. But
> for some reason, many people have a disconnect about the Planet, as
> opposed to their Child. They are willing to allow levels of risk to the
> planet that they would not allow their child.
>
> Rich, if you have had a child, you have confronted this. A child is
> exposed to hazards, about which each of which you ask:
> 1. What is the chance it will help him grow?
> 2. What is the chance it will maim him, or end his life?
>
> When you were a young father, you probably thought about these things. At
> what age did you allow your child to cross the street? To walk on the
> shoulder of a road against traffic? To climb tall trees? What were the
> percentages, and how did you decide what to allow your child to do?
>
> The Planet is as important to me as my child, because it is all my child
> has. If there is a one percent possibility that the worst predictions of
> the wamers could come true, then Game Theory directs me to mitigate this.
> So I live green. I drive a small car, and later I will drive a more
> efficient one. I combine errands. I do not drive for pleasure. I installed
> a highly efficient furnace. I will use my power as a consumer to work in
> the green direction.
>
Hmm, no offence, but it sounds to me like you are the ultimate pawn in "the
game". Don't you want to know the facts before you allow yourself to be
manipulated by what is sold as "the facts"? Global warming has only become
headline news over the last couple of years, but now we're suddenly "out of
time". This is a classic scare mongering tactic. Fear is the oldest
control mechanism in the book.
Twenty years ago, we were all scared into believing that a deteriorating
ozone layer would lay us all to waste. The bad science behind that theory
is laughable. Go study the properties of ozone and you'll come to the same
conclusion.
The current "science" on offer from the global warming proponents requires
no less faith than belief in a religion. A christian will point to
"evidence" of Noah's flood just as compelling. Hmm, now there's a thought;
do we or don't we believe the theories of the climate scientists who also
happen to be religious?
Good on you for driving a small car and installing an efficient furnace. I
do believe that non-renewable resources should be preserved and that toxic
emissions should be reduced. But there are enough scientific voices for and
against the global warming debate to make me want to spend a little more
time weighing the evidence before getting steam-rollered by the politics.
And yes, I have children. But I believe that teaching them to investigate
and question what they are told will make them far safer than setting an
example of believing everything I'm told, unchallenged. There is a huge
difference between mitigating the risk of a known and tangeble danger
(crossing the road), vs a theoretical, un-proven danger.
Bill.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Bill Ruys
>
> There's one argument that trumps them all though.
>
> The AGW case is based on the theory that CO2 from human activity is the
> culprit.
> If their CO2 numbers are seriously wrong then the whole case for AGW falls
> like
> a house of cards.
>
> Now read this..... and it won't take even 9 minutes of your precious time.
>
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
>
> I want to look into this further but haven't got round to it yet.
>
> Graham
>
>
That *is* an interesting read. It would seem that there is a political
agenda seriously distorting the truth. The Siple Curve is used all the time
in this debate, yet it does seem seriously flawed, which in turn invalidates
most of the pro-warming argument. I really hate the deception.
Mickey
Did you see "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? It is a documentary film
which pokes considerable holes in the idea of human-induced global warming.
In particular, it focuses on the ice core "evidence" which is plumped by
Gore and others, and shows how in fact CO2 has *followed* warming, not
led it.
Obviously the global warming community started decrying it immediately,
but I found this reaction telling:
Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by
temperature, but then writes that the programmes assertion that
"this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for
global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often
show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always
make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to
increased carbon dioxide."
If it doesn't mean anything, why would they show the diagram?
--
Mickey
People who want to share their religious views with you
almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Don Pearce
<billD...@siliconaudioDOTco.nz> wrote:
>And yes, I have children. But I believe that teaching them to investigate
>and question what they are told will make them far safer than setting an
>example of believing everything I'm told, unchallenged. There is a huge
>difference between mitigating the risk of a known and tangeble danger
>(crossing the road), vs a theoretical, un-proven danger.
>
>Bill.
>
>
I'm not sure I quite subscribe to the conspiracy theory - something
altogether more mundane is happening.
We have theories about the world that rub along quite nicely for
years. The suddenly we acquire the power to make reliable accurate
measurements; they show things to be very different to the cosy status
quo we had assumed. So we have two choices. We can accept that
everything we previously thought was wrong, and the measurements show
us how the world really is, or we can be arrogant and believe we had
it right and these new measurements show that all of a sudden things
are changing. It is just (of course) a coincidence that they are
changing just at the moment we are at last able to measure that
change.
So no - I don't believe the world is all of a sudden different because
of us. I believe it merely looks different because all of a sudden we
are looking at it differently.
We need to lose our arrogance, and accept that we didn't know a great
deal in the past, and what we now know is simply the way things are.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
news to me
"Don Pearce" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:467aeb0c...@news.plus.net...
With one extra point - the way things are, as they appear today
James Perrett
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> James Perrett wrote:
>
>> While we certainly don't know exactly what effect we are having on the
>> Earth's climate, as our understanding of our environment is woefully
>> incomplete, there's an interesting analysis of what we do know at
>> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>
> That's an 'analysis' that presumes AGW is correct.
>
> Not much of an analysis at all if only presents 'one side'.
>
> Furthermore it seems the CO2 numbers have been frigged.
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
>
> The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such
> poor
> knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming
> models. The
> modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in
> atmospheric air
> indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335
> ppmv[11]
> (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data
> used to
> demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292
> ppmv[12]. A
> study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits
> in
> Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv,
> and
> 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2
> air
> concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
>
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/call2.jpg
>
> Graham
>
This is exactly the kind of discussion that needs to take place - with the
scientific data being properly examined and re-examined. Hopefully, with
the advent of new methods of collecting data we will also gain a greater
understanding of the mechanisms involved. I have no problem with this
debate but I do have a problem with journalists and politicians taking
things out of context and trying to make this issue look black and white.
Many journalists don't seem to understand shades of grey so scientists
tend to try to make things as simple as possible for them to understand
and may well be guilty of dressing things up for public consumption. If
you want the real story then you have to read their scientific papers.
Cheers
James.
James Perrett
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ever wondered if some ppl are lying to you ?
>
I notice that all of your examples refer to the Arctic - parts of the
Antarctic tell a very different story.
Cheers
James.
hank alrich
Yeah, you can read wiki or you can read the book. He's a bit more of a
global scientist than you are.
Eeyore
James Perrett wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Ever wondered if some ppl are lying to you ?
>
> I notice that all of your examples refer to the Arctic -
Yes because that's not so cold and if anywhere's going to melt, it'll be the
Actic first.
> parts of the Antarctic tell a very different story.
In what way. Most think the Antarctic is simply too cold for any significant
melting of the ice cap there.
Graham
James Perrett
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> reason, it is impossible to approach the Grahams and the Dons by game
>> theory, or other rational argument. Their minds are made rigid by the
>> instinctual desire to protect their property, which in this case,
>> extends to
>> their ways of lives.
>
> Hilarious.
>
> I was originally fairly taken in by the global warming crowd.
>
> As their predictions became ever more hysterical I reviewed my position
> and
> found a wealth of contrary data. Actually, the critical turning point
> for me was
> when I queried some aspect of the received wisdom about AGW and got a
> 'you must
> be stupid not to know that' type response from a 'warmingist'.
>
Are you talking about climate change activists (like Greenpeace or Friends
of the Earth) or are you talking about scientists here?
Unlike the activists, most scientists will tell you that we still don't
know exactly what is going to happen but all the data indicate that
something is happening to the climate. From what you are saying it would
appear that many activists are doing more harm than good to the public
perception of climate change and environmental scientists need to
recognise this and make sure that their arguments don't get lost amongst
the activist's hype.
Cheers
James.
Don Pearce
The ice in the centre of the Antarctic is growing thicker quite
rapidly. It is only the Ross ice shelf that is shrinking.
Don Pearce
wrote:
You are joking of course? He is the original fruit cake after which,
sultana cakes, madeira cakes, christmas cakes, plum puddings, my mum's
fruit loaves etc were all named.
James Perrett
<billD...@siliconaudioDOTco.nz> wrote:
> That *is* an interesting read. It would seem that there is a political
> agenda seriously distorting the truth. The Siple Curve is used all the
> time
> in this debate, yet it does seem seriously flawed, which in turn
> invalidates
> most of the pro-warming argument. I really hate the deception.
>
Take a look at the New Scientist link I posted earlier in this thread.
Cheers
James.
Eeyore
hank alrich wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > hank alrich wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your idea of a century to enter an ice age doesn't seem to fit the data.
> > >
> > > _Gaia's Revenge_, James Lovelock.
> >
> > What's that supposed to mean ?
> >
> > Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock
> > argues that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and
> > the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where
> > the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
>
>
> Yeah, you can read wiki or you can read the book. He's a bit more of a
> global scientist than you are.
In what way is a theory about 'the planet getting revenge on mankind' scientific ?
It's the very worst kind of dumbing down.
David Icke, the 'green party' spokesman also believes the world is run by
invisible alien lizard beings. Do you expect me to take that seriously as well ?
Graham
Soundhaspriority
"Bill Ruys" <billD...@siliconaudioDOTco.nz> wrote in message
news:46773b76$0$19486$8826...@free.teranews.com...
No offense, but it seems to me you are the ultimate pawn of simplistic
thinking habits. This is not about whether global warming is true.
I don't believe in global warming. I don't believe in not-global-warming.
Game Theory teaches us that because of the dire consequences of one of the
possibilities, we should try to protect the planet from it. I am puzzled by
your pawn-like thinking.
Richard Crowley
> You must be very proud to be regressive.
Lemmings are team players.
Steven Sullivan
> James Perrett wrote:
> > While we certainly don't know exactly what effect we are having on the
> > Earth's climate, as our understanding of our environment is woefully
> > incomplete, there's an interesting analysis of what we do know at
> > http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
> That's an 'analysis' that presumes AGW is correct.
A "presumption" that the vast majority of atmospheric scientists -- or what we would call
'experts on the subject' -- now make.
> Not much of an analysis at all if only presents 'one side'.
> Furthermore it seems the CO2 numbers have been frigged.
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
> The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor
> knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The
> modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air
> indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11]
> (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to
> demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A
> study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in
> Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and
> 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air
> concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/call2.jpg
> Graham
Oh for fuck's sake. The naysayer stuff has been debunked over and over again by now, including
Jaworowski's (the 'frigged C02 figures' being cited on warwickhughes).
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/jabberowski.html
Btw, Jaworowski is a physician, not an atmospheric scientist. He publishes mainly in journals
funded by Lyndon LaRouche.
Even the industry-funded 'skeptics' are turning to the 'well, there's nothing we can do
about it/maybe it'll be good for us' trope instead of denial.
The scientific consensus is in: global warming is real, and human activity is a cause.
Best web resource for global warming info:
http://www.realclimate.org/
And places like THAT are where such debates shoudl be conducted.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Steven Sullivan
By whom? Guys like Zbigniew Jaworowski? All that sort of 'examination' does is add
more noise to the signal.
Steven Sullivan
> "Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
> > I'm sorry, Frank, but the issue is bigger than that. With any threat come
> > the profiteers and the manipulators. But the inevitable corruption has
> > nothing to do with the Game Theory of global warming.
> Rather naieve to think that there aren't profiteers and manipulators
> in the GlobalWarming Camp. Algore himself leaps to mind.
> I dare you to go to YouTube and watch the whole (~90 minutes)
> documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
This whole thread is really saddening.
Please, guys, stick to audio. The role of 'global warming skeptic' becomes you not. (And
what is it about 'engineers', of all types, going all 'skeptic' on the scientific consensus
about stuff way outside their areas of expertise? I've seen it happen in the evolution
'debate' too.)
Steven Sullivan
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> > "Richard Crowley" wrote
> >
> > > I dare you to go to YouTube and watch the whole (~90 minutes)
> > > documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
> >
> > I don't have 90 minutes to listen to what I know to be true: that within
> > both camps, there are people distorting the argument, some out of genunine
> > fear, some for power, and some for greed. This has always been true with any
> > issue.
> There's one argument that trumps them all though.
> The AGW case is based on the theory that CO2 from human activity is the culprit.
> If their CO2 numbers are seriously wrong then the whole case for AGW falls like
> a house of cards.
> Now read this..... and it won't take even 9 minutes of your precious time.
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
> I want to look into this further but haven't got round to it yet.
It's junk. You think no scientists of calibre higher than Dr. Jaworowski have 'looked into'
this before?
Steven Sullivan
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:06:49 GMT, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Our climate has jumped into and out of Ice Ages, for example,
> >> in less than a century many times in the past.
> >
> >Cite please.
> I work for a living and so don't have much time to comb the net,
> but if you're really interested you might look into core samples,
> from which this originates, or, if that's too obscure I could,
> time permitting, provide you with book titles. But it's not a
> secret, and really shouldn't be too surprising.
He might, also, look into the scientific papers behind the most recent IPCC report.
Unless he thinks that was all just made up.
As a scientist (biologist, not climate), I'm constantly annoyed
both by the simplification of science in the press, and by the self-anointed
'experts' who seem to assume that when a scientific consensus has been
reached in a field, all those scientists must somehow be either lying,
or cowed into silence, and if only they were allowed to speak their
*real* thoughts, or if only they were given the *real* data, then the
'lie' would crumble. I don't know if this is wishful thinking, arrogance,
some sort of native contrarian-ness, or just cluelessness about scientists
and science.
The thing is, from report to report, the bulk of evidence has gotten *larger and stronger*
that the earth is warming, and that human activity is playing a role. More and more scientists
*aren't* breaking away from the idea -- if anything they're *coming onboard*. You'd never get
this if you only read 'skeptical' sources. (Indeed, millions of Americans apparently think
the theory of evolution is on the brink of collapse -- an utterly laughable idea from a
biologist's perspective)
Steven Sullivan
> On 2007-06-19, Bill Ruys <billD...@siliconaudioDOTco.nz> wrote:
> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:467716F9...@hotmail.com...
> >>
> >> There's one argument that trumps them all though.
> >>
> >> The AGW case is based on the theory that CO2 from human activity is the
> >> culprit.
> >> If their CO2 numbers are seriously wrong then the whole case for AGW falls
> >> like
> >> a house of cards.
> >>
> >> Now read this..... and it won't take even 9 minutes of your precious time.
> >>
> >> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
> >>
> >> I want to look into this further but haven't got round to it yet.
> >>
> >> Graham
> >>
> >>
> > That *is* an interesting read. It would seem that there is a political
> > agenda seriously distorting the truth. The Siple Curve is used all the time
> > in this debate, yet it does seem seriously flawed, which in turn invalidates
> > most of the pro-warming argument. I really hate the deception.
> Did you see "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? It is a documentary film
> which pokes considerable holes in the idea of human-induced global warming.
It is a documentary shot through with some rather large holes of its own; several of the
scientists it cited, for example, have disassociated themselves from it in the strongest
terms. Might I suggest at least a perusal of the WIkipedia aritcle on the documentary?
Please, people, get some reliable sources, not this junk!
news to me
quantity, analysis is all missing
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f592ih$e23$3...@reader2.panix.com...
Richard Crowley
> James Perrett wrote:
>> This is exactly the kind of discussion that needs to take place - with
>> the
>> scientific data being properly examined and re-examined.
>
> By whom? Guys like Zbigniew Jaworowski? All that sort of 'examination'
> does is add more noise to the signal.
One side's "signal" is the other's "noise".
Richard Crowley
> This whole thread is really saddening.
>
> Please, guys, stick to audio. The role of 'global warming skeptic'
> becomes you not.
Nor does the role of "global warming advocate" become you.
What is really saddening is the quite undeserved reverence for
the mass media today. They have repeatedly shown themselves
incompetent when it comes to reporting on anything scientific.
We frequently laugh at their reporting of audio subjects that we
read about. But we take their "reporting" on "global warming" at
face value? Please.
Scott Dorsey
>because most of us know that scientific consensus is junk sciences. Proof,
>quantity, analysis is all missing
Does this apply to all scientific consensus? Should I stop believing in
gravity and Kirchoff's Law?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mickey
Several? Which several?
No, one has to my knowledge (Wunsch). And he is being sued by the
production company over his public claims to have been misrepresented
and deceived.
Another has expressed concerns over how his data was used, and the complete
accuracy, but, but have not "disassociated in the strongest terms".
> Might I suggest at least a perusal of the WIkipedia aritcle on the
> documentary?
Which I had previously read. You apparently looked at it, but did not
really read it. Care to quote the places where it's evidence is refuted
(besides the acknowledged errors in volcanic and seismic data)? I saw plenty
of places where letters of protest were cited, but not many places where
there was any substantial refutation of evidence.
Sure, plenty of scientists who make their living on global warming will
denounce it. Don't count me among the surprised...
> Please, people, get some reliable sources, not this junk!
Reliable? Like ice core data that is meaningless? And replies to posts
that snip out and ignore their most telling point? Or replies which use
exaggerations like "several" instead of "one"?
Post a reliable response, not this junk!
--
Mickey
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
Mickey
> news to me <stra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>because most of us know that scientific consensus is junk sciences. Proof,
>>quantity, analysis is all missing
>
> Does this apply to all scientific consensus?
He is, I believe, talking about scientific consensus itself as the proof.
Polling scientists about their opinion, and using that as data, is junk
science.
And guess what the first thing is that you will hear from most global warming
advocates? How many scientists supposedly believe it. After that, what do they
have to say? They can say that the earth is currently in a warming period,
which everyone knows. They can point to hurricanes and melting, which is
ridiculous because even were that significant, it simply follows from
warming. Beyond that, what will they say? What *can* they say?
Unless one can prove that C02 increase leads temperature increase, which
no one has done, it's all a bunch of shit as far as I am concerned.
> Should I stop believing in gravity and Kirchoff's Law?
I believe that those are proved, and don't rely on scientific consensus
to boost their validity.
--
Mickey
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
----== 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 =----
news to me
exactly what I meant
"Mickey" <mic...@perusion.net> wrote in message
news:slrnf7g7e8...@bill.heins.net...
Eeyore
Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Bill Ruys" wrote
> > "Soundhaspriority" wrote
> >>
> >> The Planet is as important to me as my child, because it is all my child
> >> has. If there is a one percent possibility that the worst predictions of
> >> the wamers could come true, then Game Theory directs me to mitigate this.
> >> So I live green. I drive a small car, and later I will drive a more
> >> efficient one. I combine errands. I do not drive for pleasure. I
> >> installed a highly efficient furnace. I will use my power as a consumer
> >> to work in the green direction.
> >>
> > Hmm, no offence, but it sounds to me like you are the ultimate pawn in
> > "the game".
>
> No offense, but it seems to me you are the ultimate pawn of simplistic
> thinking habits. This is not about whether global warming is true.
>
> I don't believe in global warming. I don't believe in not-global-warming.
> Game Theory teaches us that because of the dire consequences of one of the
> possibilities, we should try to protect the planet from it. I am puzzled by
> your pawn-like thinking.
It would be sensible if the things suggested were able to 'protect the planet'
from the alleged consequences of not doing them.
We have a game here where the allegations of 'harm' are based on highly
questionable 'science' both in terms of what's really going on (is there really
dangerous global warming or not) and what's causing it (is it the result of
human activity or is it natural change), compounded by an idea that humans can
influence it which also seems highly shaky to me.
That's no less than 3 unknowns as far as I can see.
Graham
Eeyore
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > James Perrett wrote:
>
> > > While we certainly don't know exactly what effect we are having on the
> > > Earth's climate, as our understanding of our environment is woefully
> > > incomplete, there's an interesting analysis of what we do know at
> > > http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>
> > That's an 'analysis' that presumes AGW is correct.
>
> A "presumption" that the vast majority of atmospheric scientists -- or what we would call
> 'experts on the subject' -- now make.
Only those who believe in AGW make that claim. There actually seem to be plenty of climate
scientists saying it may be a crock of lies.
Graham