Climate change: new impressions
han...@quick.net
denialists to chuckle about and the green turds to cry and worry about.
It is my great pleasure to pour some adrenaline into this NG where most
of the regulars do actually believe that their green crocodile tears do
somehow make or impact social- and enviro policy, not realizing that
this NG is nothing more than a cyber party where failed enviro
prodigies do come to die while laying their last green turd.
Climate change: new impressions from space
ESA SCIENCE REPORT
Posted: September 21, 2000
Are variations in the Sun's brightness an important cause of climate
change? Could changes in the Sun's magnetism affect the Earth's clouds?
Why do temperature trends in the lower atmosphere give a different
impression of global warming from measurements at ground level? The
latest results from spacecraft that observe the Sun and the Earth
provoke many such questions. They will be debated next week on the
Spanish island of Tenerife, where scientists who calculate climate
change due to manmade greenhouse gases will meet others who argue that
solar effects have been underestimated.
The European Union and the European Space Agency are sponsoring the
conference entitled "The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate", 24-29
September. It is hosted in Santa Cruz de Tenerife by the Instituto de
Astrofísica de Canarias. More than 40 speakers from 15 countries will
review the Sun´s erratic behaviour and its possible climatic effects,
in the most comprehensive meeting on this subject for many years.
"To those of us who observe it every day, the Sun is a wild beast, and
no one doubts that its variations affect the climate to some degree,"
says Brigitte Schmieder of the Observatoire Paris-Meudon, France, co-
chairman of the scientific committee that planned the meeting. "The
arguments in Tenerife will be about the mechanisms of the solar
influence, and its importance compared with the human factor."
Claus Frohlich of the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium,
Switzerland, will report the latest results from his VIRGO instrument
on the ESA-NASA SOHO spacecraft. These show an increase of about 0.1
per cent in visible solar radiation since SOHO was launched in 1995, at
the last sunspot minimum. But this is a cyclical variation and
comparisons with results from earlier spacecraft show no overall
increase since the 1980s.
The relatively small variations in the Sun's brightness observed by
satellites encouraged the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to
propose in 1990 that global warming in the 20th Century was due mainly
to carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases added to the
air by human activity. It predicted severe global warming in the 21st
Century as a result of this enhanced greenhouse effect.
These opinions were reconfirmed in a later report, Climate Change 1995.
A third major assessment is now in preparation. Sir John Houghton of
the Intergovernmental Panel´s science working group will report at the
Tenerife meeting on the issues being addressed. One is a
reconsideration of the historical role of other natural agents of
climate change, including the Sun.
There were no satellites in 1700, when the Sun was unusually inactive
and Europe was very chilly, but many experts suppose that solar
radiation has intensified since then. Two conference speakers, Marcel
Fligge of the ETHZ Institut für Astronomie, Switzerland, and Sami
Solanki of the Max-Planck-Institut für Aeronomie, Germany, have just
published estimates that the average visible light increased by 0.2 %
during the past 300 years, and ultraviolet rays by 0.7 %.
"It requires precise space observations to detect the subtle solar
brightening at the peak of the sunspot cycle," Solanki notes. "To
evaluate long-term climatic effects, we have to make the most of just
two decades of space measurements and use models to reconstruct the
larger changes in the past."
A discovery made with help from the ESA-NASA Ulysses spacecraft is that
the Sun's magnetic field in the Earth's vicinity doubled in strength
during the 20th Century. Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory, UK, will discuss this symptom of a more active Sun. It can
be used to estimate increases in brightness, which were apparently
greater in the first half of the century than in the second half.
The intensifying magnetic field, carried by the solar wind, also
reduced the number of cosmic rays reaching the Earth from the Galaxy.
According to another speaker, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space
Research Institute, the shortage of cosmic rays reduced the Earth's
cloudiness, so enabling the world to warm up. In 1996, Svensmark found
that cloudiness gauged from weather satellites such as Meteosat
apparently varied according to the intensity of cosmic rays.
Using improved data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology
Project, Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh now link cosmic-ray
variations chiefly with low clouds over the tropical oceans.
Meteorologists have been sceptical about any effect of cosmic rays on
cloud formation, but in April this year atmospheric chemists at the
University of California, Los Angeles, suggested a mechanism. In clean
oceanic air, cosmic rays may facilitate the formation at low altitudes
of sulphuric acid particles, on which cloud droplets form.
A proposed experiment at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory
in Geneva, is intended to test mechanisms like that. Jasper Kirkby from
CERN will explain how pulses of particles can simulate cosmic rays, in
a purpose-built cloud chamber matching conditions in the atmosphere.
Besides the atmospheric and particle physicists, space scientists from
the Danish Space Research Institute and the UK´s Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory have joined the team for this experiment, called CLOUD.
Meanwhile, various combinations of natural influences and manmade
emissions have been compared with the sequence of temperature changes
of the 20th Century, in a computer model at the Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research, UK. Simon Tett will describe the
results at the Tenerife meeting. The warming in the early part of the
century is best explained by changes in solar brightness, a scarcity of
explosive volcanoes, and internal climate variability. On the other
hand, the model indicates that the human influence was the chief cause
of recent warming.
"The effect of greenhouse gases was masked by the cooling effect of
anthropogenic sulphate aerosols until the 1960s," Tett comments. "This
allowed the Sun and other natural forcings to play their part in
climate change. Now we see the gases beginning to overcome the cooling
effects of volcanoes and anthropogenic sulphate aerosols. Since the
1963 eruption of Agung the cooling from volcanic aerosols has offset
the small warming from increases in solar irradiance and this cooling
has been overwhelmed by warming from greenhouse gases."
Another puzzle from the satellites remains. John Christy of the
University of Alabama in Huntsville will report that in 1999-2000 the
lower atmosphere over the tropics is cooler than at any other time in
the past 22 years. He will cite data from US weather satellites that
detect temperature-sensitive microwave emissions from oxygen in the
air, and independent confirmation by balloon-borne thermometers. "This
is curious," Christy says. "According to the climate models used to
calculate the enhanced greenhouse effect, the warming should have been
particularly rapid in the air over the tropics."
Europe will join in the watch on atmospheric temperatures from space,
when the first Metop satellite, being developed by ESA for Eumetsat,
goes into a polar orbit in 2002. Its instruments will include an
advanced microwave sounding unit provided by the USA.
The climate conference in Santa Cruz de Tenerife is accompanied by
other meetings about the Sun. Sessions organized on 29 September by the
Joint Organization for Solar Observations will review data handling,
instruments, and the August 1999 solar eclipse. On 30 September, the
European Solar Magnetometry Network will convene. In the following
week, 2-6 October 2000, helioseismologists of SOHO and the ground-based
GONG project will gather for a workshop on "Helio- and Asteroseismology
at the Dawn of the Millennium".
Paal Brekke of ESA will give a popular talk on "The Sun through the
eyes of SOHO" on 29 September at 20:00 in the Cajacanarias Conference
Center. ESA will publish the proceedings of "The Solar Cycle and
Terrestrial Climate" conference in a few months' time.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Langrrr
Thank you very much for this enlightening article. As I have said
before, my own personal opinion on the subject has been highly
influenced by very similar work done by Drs. Balliunas and Soon.
I cannot wait for the results of this important conference to come out.
Keep us posted if you can.
- Andrew Langer
--
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
Don Libby
>
>
> Climate change: new impressions from space
> ESA SCIENCE REPORT
> Posted: September 21, 2000
>
>
> satellites encouraged the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to
> propose in 1990 that global warming in the 20th Century was due mainly
> to carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases added to the
> air by human activity. It predicted severe global warming in the 21st
> Century as a result of this enhanced greenhouse effect.
>
No, the severe global warming doesn't come until the 22nd and 23rd
Century. The 21st Century is just our last chance to do something about
it.
-dl
Paul D. Farrar
GMT, han...@quick.net writes:
...
>
>Climate change: new impressions from space
>ESA SCIENCE REPORT
>Posted: September 21, 2000
>
Landscheidt will be a speaker. The immediately preceding speaker
(Warren White) went to the same graduate department that I did,
although earlier; so, of course I had to rib him about sharing the
stage with an astrologer.
--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
CLIMOCHRIS
correlation with sunspot cycles and apparent global warming- if you correct for
the increase in solar output you get about .1 C increase in temp in the last
130 years which is statistically insignificant - more importantly it rubbishes
the global warmers half baked computer models
Thomas Palm
I'm sure that if you look for a while you can find a better reference to
that
statement so that the rest of us can check what it really says. There
has been
several studies hinting that there may be some connection between the
sun and
the climate, but this is not enough to explain more than a small
fraction of
the current heating.
Johne S. Morton
"Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:39CE32AA...@chello.se...
You make it sound as if you are skeptical that the sun can affect the
Earth's climate. What do you mean by "small fraction" and "current
heating" (does "current heating" mean only the last 20 years)?
Halpern
Actually, Johne, you are trying to make it sound that way. Why
don't you stick your head into your barrel of red herrings in
strawmen?
1. For all practical purposes, all of the energy warming the atmosphere
and the surface of the Earth comes from the sun.
2. Measured changes in the sun's irradience over the past century are
not enough to account for observed warming, especially in the last
20-30 years.
Clear.
josh halpern
Johne S. Morton
"Halpern" <the...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39CE8B67...@erols.com...
I would ask you where you stick your head, but I think I already know.
> 1. For all practical purposes, all of the energy warming the atmosphere
> and the surface of the Earth comes from the sun.
>
Yes.
> 2. Measured changes in the sun's irradience over the past century are
> not enough to account for observed warming, especially in the last
> 20-30 years.
>
And therein lies the great debate. So indeed it is only the last 20-30
years we are talking about. Can you prove that the beloved surface record
is not flawed? Can you quantify how much natural forcing has occurred in
the last 30 years? Can you show me 100 diverse locations from around the
world which exhibit a sustained and suspicious warming trend (instrument
record only)?
> Clear.
>
> josh halpern
>
na...@my-deja.com
> In article <39CE8B67...@erols.com>,
> Halpern <the...@erols.com> wrote:
> 1. For all practical purposes, all of the energy warming the
> atmosphere and the surface of the Earth comes from the sun.
>
> 2. Measured changes in the sun's irradience over the past century are
> not enough to account for observed warming, especially in the last
> 20-30 years.
>
> Clear.
>
> josh halpern
>
Enough with the irradiance already! It is clear that fluctuations in
solar *irradiance* over the past century are not enough to account for
the observed warming (unless the climate is more sensitive to small
fluctuations in solar irradiance than currently assumed). However the
sun's *magnetic* activity (total magnetic flux) has increased by a
factor of 2.3 since 1901 and by a factor of 1.41 between 1964-1996.
Landscheidt has shown that cycles in the sun's magnetic and eruptional
activity caused by solar motion about the centre of mass of the solar
system are the driving force behind the ENSO and global temperature
fluctuations.
Regards,
Nathan Harris.
Steinn Sigurdsson
...
> Landscheidt has shown that cycles in the sun's magnetic and eruptional
> activity caused by solar motion about the centre of mass of the solar
> system are the driving force behind the ENSO and global temperature
> fluctuations.
No he has not.
Landscheidt has conjecture without adequate proof that
solar activity is a significant driving force behind ENSO
and climate variance.
There are two issues - one is whether the sun's magnetic and
eruptional activity is caused by solar motion about the barycentre;
I am very skeptical that this is the case, and quite certain that
Landscheidt has not demonstrated this to be the case.
Secondly, there is the question of whether solar activity
drives ENSO or global temperature fluctuations.
Landscheidt certainly has not demonstrated this,
independent of whether it is true or not.
It seems extremely unlikely that solar activity drives
ENSO, though it could conceivably couple to ENSO.
It is possible that solar activity variation is a significant
component of climate variance (ie that recent past solar variation
is the cause of some of the historical climate variation),
there is some data suggesting this, but the causative link is
now very dubious, even if a cute mechanism by which it might
work has been indentified.
An entirely independent question is whether anthropic forcing
has or will in the near future exceed the natural variance,
whether the natural variance is solar driven or internal.
Halpern
> "Halpern" <the...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
> > > "Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> > > news:39CE32AA...@chello.se...
> > > > CLIMOCHRIS wrote:
> SNIP....
> > Actually, Johne, you are trying to make it sound that way. Why
> > don't you stick your head into your barrel of red herrings in
> > strawmen?
>
> I would ask you where you stick your head, but I think I already know.
On my pillow. Together with a few fluffy rabbits.
> > 1. For all practical purposes, all of the energy warming the atmosphere
> > and the surface of the Earth comes from the sun.
> Yes.
>
> > 2. Measured changes in the sun's irradience over the past century are
> > not enough to account for observed warming, especially in the last
> > 20-30 years.
>
> And therein lies the great debate. So indeed it is only the last 20-30
> years we are talking about. Can you prove that the beloved surface record
> is not flawed? Can you quantify how much natural forcing has occurred in
> the last 30 years? Can you show me 100 diverse locations from around the
> world which exhibit a sustained and suspicious warming trend (instrument
> record only)?
Well enough. The point is NOT that it is only the last 20-30 years, but that
by looking at the data for the last 100 years, and comparing it with the
anthropic forcing, we would only expect to see a significant change within
the recent past given natural forcings, uncertainties, etc. We are seeing one.
Of course, we can always wait for another 100, when, our best understanding
says that the change will be quite uncomfortable before doing anything, or we
can start now, with relatively benign preventative measures.
josh halpern
>
> > Clear.
> >
> > josh halpern
> >
na...@my-deja.com
> In article <rx7puls...@najma.astro.psu.edu>,
> Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@najma.astro.psu.edu> wrote:
> >na...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> ...
> > Landscheidt has shown that cycles in the sun's magnetic and
eruptional
> > activity caused by solar motion about the centre of mass of the
solar
> > system are the driving force behind the ENSO and global temperature
> > fluctuations.
>
> No he has not.
> Landscheidt has conjecture without adequate proof that
> solar activity is a significant driving force behind ENSO
> and climate variance.
Agreed...his results need to be proved (or disproved) by others.
> There are two issues - one is whether the sun's magnetic and
> eruptional activity is caused by solar motion about the barycentre;
> I am very skeptical that this is the case, and quite certain that
> Landscheidt has not demonstrated this to be the case.
>
Landscheidt has clearly demonstrated that solar eruptional activity is
concentrated around certain points in the solar orbital angular
momentum cycle.
> Secondly, there is the question of whether solar activity
> drives ENSO or global temperature fluctuations.
> Landscheidt certainly has not demonstrated this,
> independent of whether it is true or not.
I disagree. His paper on solar eruptional activity and ENSO shows a
clear temporal link between the two phenomena suggesting that the
former drives the latter.
> It seems extremely unlikely that solar activity drives
> ENSO, though it could conceivably couple to ENSO.
Why...? How...?
> It is possible that solar activity variation is a significant
> component of climate variance (ie that recent past solar variation
> is the cause of some of the historical climate variation),
> there is some data suggesting this, but the causative link is
> now very dubious, even if a cute mechanism by which it might
> work has been indentified.
>
Are you referring to the cosmic ray-clouds hypothesis (Svensmark
effect)...? or variations in ultra-violet intensity...? or what...?
> An entirely independent question is whether anthropogenic forcing
> has or will in the near future exceed the natural variance,
> whether the natural variance is solar driven or internal.
>
Yes, that's an interesting one. My money's on "no".
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
You seem to think that you are an exemplary scientist. Yet you disregard
one of the basic rules of science: a debate should be limited to
objective
arguments. Argumenta ad hominem are considered to indicate undignified
behaviour.
Though you are taking part in a scientific discussion, you have several
times made use of argumenta ad hominem by alleging that I am a
professional
astrologer. This is not true. Fact is that I have written a book that
provides statistical evidence that the astrological tradition does not
conform with reality. Prof. Eysenck, London, has written the foreword to
this book critical of astrology.
Obviously, you intend to harm my reputation as a scientist. A point in
case is your recent remark: "Landscheidt will be a speaker (at the
climate
conference in Tenerife). The immediately preceding speaker (Warren
White)
went to the same graduate department that I did, although earlier; so,
of
course I had to rib him about sharing the stage with an astrologer." I
am
thinking about going to court to stop this reckless behaviour and sue
for
damages.
Theodor Landscheidt
John Hellstrom
Landscheidt <theodor.l...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I am thinking about going to court to stop this reckless behaviour
> and sue for damages.
The statement above does more to harm your reputation than
anything anybody else could have written in this newsgroup, as
threatening legal action over usenet postings is normally a last
resort of the woefully pathetic. To sue in such a case is to ensure
widespread global publicity for something that would otherwise
have been read by at most a few dozen people, so one would have
to seriously question your motives!
This is a public forum, and you have full access to the forum, such
as it is, to respond to anything that anybody writes in it. If you
believe you've been misrepresented in this newsgroup and are
unhappy about it then try standing up for yourself in this
newsgroup. The floor is yours - flame away!
If every scientist who had their work or character criticised in a
usenet newsgroup ran squawking for their lawyers, the world
would be a litigious place indeed.
John.
Ian St. John
mildly amusing annecdote. Actually, I had to scan deja-news, since my ISP
didn't pick it up. I assume that is the one about a speaking engagement?
I am happy to welcome Dr. Landscheidt to the forum, but suggest that he grow
a thicker skin. An unmoderated newsgroup is a place where there is much
debate and a little reason. Keeping to
rational argument is the only workable response.
There is no judge, so the only reward is to cause others to respect your
abilities, based on your arguments. This can be very hard on those that
'over-react' to postings. It can also be rewarding, in that is very open,
and new ideas are given fair ( though sometimes rancorous) reading.
"John Hellstrom" <johnhe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8t289t$knr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
han...@quick.net
"Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.l...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [Paul D. Farrar http://www.datasync.com/~farrar,
> Paul D. Farrar <far...@datasync.com>]
> You seem to think that you are an exemplary scientist.
> behaviour and sue for damages.
Theo, that is a good one, …….hhihihihihihi... woahhhhh.....
hahahah .... Hahaha.....
haaaaaah --- whoooohaaaahh....... hahahahah ...........ha hah hahah
.............hahahahahahahahah....
oueeeeeeeeeeeeh.........whaaaahhh........uuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh....
hahahahah..hhihihihihihi... woahhhhh..... hahahah .... Hahaha.....
haaaaaah --- whoooohaaaahh....... hahahahah ...........ha hah hahah
.............hahahahahahahahah....oueeeeeeeeeeeeh.........
whaaaahhh........uuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh....hahahahah..hhihihihihihi...
woahhhhh..... hahahah .... Hahaha..... haaaaaah --- whoooohaaaahh.......
hahahahah ...........ha hah hahah .............hahahahahahahahah....
oueeeeeeeeeeeeh.........whaaaahhh........uuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh....
hahahahah..hhihihihihihi... woahhhhh..... hahahah .... Hahaha.....
haaaaaah --- whoooohaaaahh....... hahahahah ...........ha hah hahah
.............hahahahahahahahah....oueeeeeeeeeeeeh.........
whaaaahhh........uuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh....
hahahahah..
So,Theo, you have beaten yourself apparently quietly into a big time
lather over Paul’s statements…..
Theo-pooh, come here and listen, closely. Venerable Uncle Al said in
one of his messages to this NG something like “everything posted to
sci.enviroment is shit”. Uncle Al was right. Sci.enviro is not a peer
review forum. It is an ongoing cyber party, day and night, where people
talk green shit and exude sociological farts, and they have done so for
years.
Everybody in here preaches to the already converted and then they go
after each other in the most vile and hilarious fashion. Everything in
here is conditional and uncertain at best, circumscribed by “I believe,
maybe, could, would and especially characterized by the magical green
word: ‘potentially’ “
Come-on join the club, Theo. Don’t be a sour-puss. Get even with
Farrar, instead of getting steamed up. Climb on Paul’s semi-green ass
and beat it mercilessly with due vengeance. Remind and convince Paul
that if he considers you to be an astrologer then this is only because
he practices voodoo science, and that he is not very good even at that.
Do this instead of kicking your dog or beating your wife or
contemplating your lawyer bit. Sorry, Theo, but I have to ROTFL over
your obvious agony and impending threat. I am sorry. I know, it’s not
nice to laugh about other people’s perceived traumas.
But Theo, this is the place where little green, unemployed and
unemployable nuts do congregate to vent their adolescent hatred against
the establishment. This is a place where burned out prodigies come to
die, laying their last green turd. This is a congregation infested with
disappointed retirees, who didn’t accomplish want they wanted during
their professional carriers, yet who are still convinced that they have
something important to say. This is a locus where a few good natured
professionals give their opinion against all odds and ridicule.
This is an interesting place.
But this is NOT a venue where you can expect solutions to a problem.
This forum is far better.
In here, in sci.enviroment, you can actually get your 15 minutes of
fame.
So, Theo, my good friend, do take advantage of this opportunity.
Best regards,
hanson
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
I do not find that my situation would be better if I grew a thicker thin. It
can also not be compared with criticizing work or character of a scientist. If
it is alleged that a scientist is an astrologer, this is kind of a death
sentence. She or he will no longer get funding, her or his papers will no longer
be published, and colleagues will sneer at her or him.
I have got such effects. P. D. Farrar did not only tell an amusing anecdote, but
assured a colleague who presented a paper at the same conference in Tenerife
where I presented papers that I am an astrologer. This scientist spred the news
in Tenerife where colleagues I had known for decades did no longer talk to me.
P. D. Farrar has told lengthy stories to provide evidence that I am a
professional astrologer, as for instance under the thread "Landscheidt cl ch
(1989)". This had the effect that one of my papers I recently submitted for
publication was explicitly rejected on the grounds that I am an astrologer. I
think that this is serious enough to justify a serious response. If someone
continuously calls you an astrologer though you are a scientist, and this not in
your presence when you can defend yourself, but behind your back, how can you
defend yourself if not publicly.
Regards,
Theodor
Ian St. John
"Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.l...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
message news:39F75DA0...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Ian and John,
>
> I do not find that my situation would be better if I grew a thicker thin.
It
> can also not be compared with criticizing work or character of a
scientist. If
> it is alleged that a scientist is an astrologer, this is kind of a death
> sentence. She or he will no longer get funding, her or his papers will no
longer
> be published, and colleagues will sneer at her or him.
As someone who has defended astrology as having a possible basis in science
( child mental developmental versus seasonal environmental factors) I have
to take exception to that. Science should be open to all ideas as long as
they stand up to rigorous scrutiny. This bothers me. I think I'd better try
a Tarot reading.... ;-)
>
> I have got such effects. P. D. Farrar did not only tell an amusing
anecdote, but
> assured a colleague who presented a paper at the same conference in
Tenerife
> where I presented papers that I am an astrologer. This scientist spred the
news
> in Tenerife where colleagues I had known for decades did no longer talk to
me.
If they knew you, why would they believe? Do you include occult symbols in
your papers?
>
> P. D. Farrar has told lengthy stories to provide evidence that I am a
> professional astrologer, as for instance under the thread "Landscheidt cl
ch
> (1989)". This had the effect that one of my papers I recently submitted
for
> publication was explicitly rejected on the grounds that I am an
astrologer.
They rejected your Doctorate? I find that hard to believe that they actually
rejected competent work based on rumor. Did they actually send you this as
an explanation of the rejection?
>
I
> think that this is serious enough to justify a serious response. If
someone
> continuously calls you an astrologer though you are a scientist, and this
not in
> your presence when you can defend yourself, but behind your back, how can
you
> defend yourself if not publicly.
So defend yourself publicly. On the newsgroup, for example. But bringing
lawsuits to the newsgroup is as wrong as bringing machine guns to the party,
or wine glasses to the battlefield. I suspect that the most contentious
issue is 'golden section' and might I suggest that you have a one on one
discussion with Leonard Evans on the use. He has the background, posts
willingly, and would be very open minded of new ideas.
>
> Regards,
>
> Theodor
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
>
David Ball
<theodor.l...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>I do not find that my situation would be better if I grew a thicker thin. It
>can also not be compared with criticizing work or character of a scientist. If
>it is alleged that a scientist is an astrologer, this is kind of a death
>sentence. She or he will no longer get funding, her or his papers will no longer
>be published, and colleagues will sneer at her or him.
>
>I have got such effects. P. D. Farrar did not only tell an amusing anecdote, but
>assured a colleague who presented a paper at the same conference in Tenerife
>where I presented papers that I am an astrologer. This scientist spred the news
>in Tenerife where colleagues I had known for decades did no longer talk to me.
>
>P. D. Farrar has told lengthy stories to provide evidence that I am a
>professional astrologer, as for instance under the thread "Landscheidt cl ch
>(1989)". This had the effect that one of my papers I recently submitted for
>publication was explicitly rejected on the grounds that I am an astrologer. I
>think that this is serious enough to justify a serious response. If someone
>continuously calls you an astrologer though you are a scientist, and this not in
>your presence when you can defend yourself, but behind your back, how can you
>defend yourself if not publicly.
>
>Regards,
>
>Theodor
While I agree fully with you sir that involving character in
debates about issues scientific is improper, the work of science can
and should be criticized, critiqued, explored and evaluated as fully
as possible.
Dr. Farrar must be a man of mighty reputation indeed if his
labeling you an "astrologer" can prevent your work from being
published in peer-reviewed journals and if long-time colleagues refuse
to communicate with you. Have you not considered the possibility that
your recently rejected paper was rejected for reasons other than a
label?
As for court action, sir, this is a public discussion forum
open to any and all and it is not moderated (God, I'd hate to be the
man who had to ride herd on some of the discussions on
sci.environment). If you feel that Dr. Farrar has slighted you in some
way on usenet, you have a less litigious option: prove him wrong!!
Show the strength of your science! Let it speak for you. If your
thinking is sound, responsible scientists are unlikely to throw it out
out of hand. Be warned, however, that while usenet is unmoderated,
there is a vast amount of expertise in all disciplines monitoring the
group.
--
David Ball
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
"Ian St. John" wrote:
>
> As someone who has defended astrology as having a possible basis in science
> ( child mental developmental versus seasonal environmental factors) I have
> to take exception to that. Science should be open to all ideas as long as
> they stand up to rigorous scrutiny. This bothers me. I think I'd better try
> a Tarot reading.... ;-)
You continue to allege that I am defending astrology. In my book "Astrology:
Hope of a Science?" (Note the question mark) I showed that all of the practices
of astrologers do not stand up to state of the art statistical investigations. I
do not see how this critical approach, acclaimed by Prof. Eysenck, London, in
his foreword to the book, could be looked at as a defense of astrology.
> If they knew you, why would they believe? Do you include occult symbols in
> your papers?
People like to believe in slanderous assertions. Consider your attitude. You
continue alleging that I am defending astrology though I pointed to my book
critical of astrology in an earlier message.
> They rejected your Doctorate? I find that hard to believe that they actually
> rejected competent work based on rumor. Did they actually send you this as
> an explanation of the rejection?
The referee who suggested rejection of my paper explicitly stated that my
results were based on my worldview as an astrologer. The editor based his
rejection on the referee's arguments.
> So defend yourself publicly. On the newsgroup, for example... I suspect that
> the most contentious issue is 'golden section' and might I suggest that you
> have a one on one discussion with Leonard Evans on the use. He has the
> background, posts
> willingly, and would be very open minded of new ideas.
>
I am willing to discuss the golden section topic publicly as I did before. As I
have not got Leonard Evans e-mail address, he should perhaps address me so that
we can begin a thread.
Theodor
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
David Ball wrote:
> If you feel that Dr. Farrar has slighted you in some
> way on usenet, you have a less litigious option: prove him wrong!!
> Show the strength of your science! Let it speak for you. If your
> thinking is sound, responsible scientists are unlikely to throw it out
> out of hand. Be warned, however, that while usenet is unmoderated,
> there is a vast amount of expertise in all disciplines monitoring the
> group.
I am willing to do that. I look forward to an attack on my work I can respond to.
Theodor Landscheidt
Leonard Evens
My name is Leonard Evens. I don't wish to get into a debate with
Landscheidt about these matters. Landscheidt apparently believes
that certain very technical results in dynamical systems about
continued fractions and irrational numbers have important applications
outside mathematics. I've discussed this some colleagues who are
recognized experts in dynamical systems. They don't know anything
about Landscheidt and after being informed about some of his
assertions, none of them seemed particularly interested in finding
out more. Speaking for myself, I have to say that it is possible
that Landscheidt is onto something monumental, but I don't believe
it.
My general philosophy about such matters is that one should be
careful about pushing specific mathematical theorems into areas
where they may not apply. Dynamical systems in particular has
had a history of such attempts. Consider for example the
misintepretations of the "butterfly effect" which are so common.
Whether Landschedit's pronouncement's fit in this category or
not, I can't say, but I am doubtful for example about the
result he apparently cited relating mentstrual cycles to the
golden mean.
I won't participate any more in this debate. I have other things
I want to do with my time.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Thomas Palm
> My name is Leonard Evens. I don't wish to get into a debate with
> Landscheidt about these matters.
You were willing to critizise Landscheid when he was not present to
defend himself. I think you really owe him to at least get a chance
to defend himself in a public debate. Even if you think the issue
is a waste of time, some of your own credibility is at stake.
It is easy to make someone look like a fool by using selected quotes
when he is not present to give a better representation of his
views. I'm not saying that you have misquoted, but by refusing a
debate the suspicion will linger.
On the other hand, Landscheid didn't improve his position by
threatening to sue people. If he has been hurt in his career it
is understandable that he is mad, but threatening litigation at
every moment just reminds me of Uri Geller.
Leonard Evens
>
> Leonard Evens wrote:
> > My name is Leonard Evens. I don't wish to get into a debate with
> > Landscheidt about these matters.
>
> You were willing to critizise Landscheid when he was not present to
> defend himself. I think you really owe him to at least get a chance
> to defend himself in a public debate. Even if you think the issue
> is a waste of time, some of your own credibility is at stake.
Actually, I had no idea at the time whether or not he was present.
>
> It is easy to make someone look like a fool by using selected quotes
> when he is not present to give a better representation of his
> views. I'm not saying that you have misquoted, but by refusing a
> debate the suspicion will linger.
I don't think I did that originally. I responded to some quotes
initially in a non-serious fashion, but the discussion got into
technical details pretty quickly. I think I confirmed that
Landscheidt's ideas were in fact based on actual theorems in
dynamical systems. In other words that the golden mean did
play a role. I did object to applying this to other areas.
But about the menstrual cycles. Let me emphasize that from
what I remember Landscheidt did not claim this as his own work
but rather cited someone else's work.
I don't want to debate him because I think I've said everything
I have to say. Our debate would run something like this.
Landscheidt would ask me to look at all the neat coincidences
which might be explained by applying the theorems in dynamical
systems to other areas. I would respond by saying I am not
impressed.
In addition, in order to debate Landscheidt productively, I would
have to study his work in detail. If Landscheidt wants to debate
me about the mathematical theorems involved, I think I can do that.
I am not an expert myself, but I have access to people who know
that subject very well. But I doubt that we have any differences
on that matter. Of course, if in the course of debate, wherever
it occurs, I find anyone has made what I consider a mathematical
error, I will point that out. But I don't think that will happen
here.
I don't think I ever ridiculed Landscheidt. If I did, I apologize.
I've certainly never been asked whether or not a paper of his
should be accepted for publication. I suspect his work would
not be publishable in a research mathematics journal, but I
don't think he claims he is doing mathematics, so that is irrelevant.
I am being called into service here because of a comment someone
else made.
However, let me say that I am willing to discuss with anyone,
within the limits of my knowledge, how to apply mathematics
to the real world. Clearly I believe that mathematics can and
should be used in applications. It is even true that unconventional
applications can lead to new and important insights. But in
recent mathematical history there have been several developments
which initially looked very promising but then didn't pan out.
One such example was catastrophe theory which tried by analogy
to explain many things by referring the theorems about certain
aspects of manifolds. It had some initial successes, but much
more was claimed for it than could be delivered. Similar
remarks could be applied to applicaions of fractals. Mathematics
applies when there is some reason to believe that the actual
hypotheses of the theorems have some relation to the model of
reality that is being studied. But it is easy to proceed by
very course analogies, and that I find suspicious.
>
> On the other hand, Landscheid didn't improve his position by
> threatening to sue people. If he has been hurt in his career it
> is understandable that he is mad, but threatening litigation at
> every moment just reminds me of Uri Geller.
You are certainly correct about that. Benoit Mandelbroit who
is often considered the father of the concept of fractals, has been
severely criticized by some in the mathematical community, both
privately and in public. He has even been called names, but as
far as I can tell he has never threatened to sue anyone.
wmconnolley
> Thomas Palm wrote:
> > Leonard Evens wrote:
> > > My name is Leonard Evens. I don't wish to get into a debate with
> > > Landscheidt about these matters.
This is a shame, because I think you are about the only hope of
getting to the bottom of this does-the-golden-section-actually-
matter-to-the-solar-system stuff, and was L taking Arnol'd's name
in vain? But, I can understand your reluctance.
> > You were willing to critizise Landscheid when he was not present to
> > defend himself. I think you really owe him to at least get a chance
> > to defend himself in a public debate.
Well, it would be nice if he were to do that, but he hasn't. He just
whinged about Farrar, and threatened to sue. If he wants to post some
science, lets see it.
> Of course, if in the course of debate, wherever
> it occurs, I find anyone has made what I consider a mathematical
> error, I will point that out. But I don't think that will happen
> here.
Indeed, its very unlikely, because I don't think that L ever presents
the mathematical details, only a skim of words over the surface. At
least in the 2 papers of his I've read (and the web page on D's site
that began all this).
-W.
--
W. M. Connolley | http://www.wmc.care4free.net
No, I haven't lost my job: NERC's newserver has become intolerable....
Ian St. John
"Leonard Evens" <l...@math.nwu.edu> wrote in message
news:39F9ACFF...@math.nwu.edu...
>
> I am being called into service here because of a comment someone
> else made.
>
My apologies, if you are referring to my comments. I had not intended to put
you 'on the spot', but thought that you would be the most interested in the
matter. As I can see that any disagreement would probably end in lawsuits, I
feel that I made an error of judgement, and fully understand your reluctance
to debate.
I myself find that I am accused of calling him an astrologer, for defending
myself as a ( very limited) believer in astrology! My point about defending
science with logic passed right on by.
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
"Ian St. John" wrote to Leonard Evens:
> My apologies, if you are referring to my comments. I had not intended to put
> you 'on the spot', but thought that you would be the most interested in the
> matter. As I can see that any disagreement would probably end in lawsuits, I
> feel that I made an error of judgement, and fully understand your reluctance
> to debate.
I objected to allegations that I am a professional astrologer because this
endangered publications and cooperation with other scientists. These are
existential working conditions which have nothing to do with disagreements in
scientific debate. I did not get the impression that Leonard Evans is afraid of
lawsuits. I understand that he wants to make mathematical comments only.
Theodor Landscheidt
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
> Well, it would be nice if he were to do that, but he hasn't...If he wants
> to post some
> science, lets see it.
I offered a public debate, especially about the physical function of the
golden section, in my letters to David Ball and Ian St. John.
> Indeed, its very unlikely, because I don't think that L ever presents
> the mathematical details, only a skim of words over the surface. At
> least in the 2 papers of his I've read (and the web page on D's site
> that began all this).
I see that you are inclined to judge without really knowing what you are
judging. In the paper you found on John Daly's web site I quoted my paper
"The cosmic function of the golden section" which deals thoroughly with the
topic. It was published in the festschrift of a respected astronomical
society (Olbers Gesellschaft). Editor was the physicist P. H. Richter,
author of the science bestseller "Images of Complex Dynamical Systems." He
would have smiled at your remark in a former message that my statement
"mathematically, the golden number 0618 ... is the most irrational of all
numbers" should not have passed peer review because of its "irrationality."
I am willing to begin a new thread under the topic "Physical function of
the golden section." As most of the material is new and cannot be found in
readily accessible literature, I would have to begin with a longer exposé
about, for instance, stability and instability in the solar system. Would
attachments (Word or Word Perfect files and scanned figures in .jpg format)
be in order? Or is there a better technical solution?
Theodor Landscheidt
Thomas Palm
> I am willing to begin a new thread under the topic "Physical function of
> the golden section." As most of the material is new and cannot be found in
> readily accessible literature, I would have to begin with a longer exposé
> about, for instance, stability and instability in the solar system. Would
> attachments (Word or Word Perfect files and scanned figures in .jpg format)
> be in order? Or is there a better technical solution?
This is a text only group so you shouldn't post any binary files as
attachments. The best solution would probably be if you could add them
to
a web page somewhere and just give us the link to it.
wmconnolley
> wmconnolley wrote:
> I am willing to begin a new thread under the topic "Physical function
> of the golden section."
Perhaps that is the best solution.
> As most of the material is new and cannot be found in
> readily accessible literature, I would have to begin with a longer
exposé
> about, for instance, stability and instability in the solar system.
The material is new? How, then, can it be true that "since the
establishment of the KAM theorem by kolmogorov (1979)... it is an
acknowledged fact that the golden section plays an important role
in the solar system dynamics"?
> Would attachments (Word or Word Perfect files and scanned
> figures in .jpg format)
> be in order? Or is there a better technical solution?
AS ISJ has said, no attachments please. Unike him, I would not favour
extensive off-newsgroup material on web pages.
We don't want to drown in detail. Start by explaining the broad
outlines of how KAM shows that the GS matters for SS dynamics. Take
less than, say, 30 lines, use maths where possible rather than words.
Then we can see which bits are contentious and which not.
And (following up hints) state clearly whether these results apply
only to a pure newetonian-gravitating system, or if they apply to
the real solar system which is relativistic, includes radiation
pressure, and drag from solar wind, etc etc.
-W.
--
W. M. Connolley | http://www.wmc.care4free.net
Posting, in this litigious world, in a personal capacity
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
> The material is new? How, then, can it be true that "since the
> establishment of the KAM theorem by kolmogorov (1979)... it is an
> acknowledged fact that the golden section plays an important role
> in the solar system dynamics"?
The material is new because it goes beyond Kolmogorov, Arnol'd, and Moser
though it is based on the mathemathical and physical foundation laid by
these mathematicians and physicists.
> AS ISJ has said, no attachments please. Unike him, I would not favour
> extensive off-newsgroup material on web pages.
>
> We don't want to drown in detail. Start by explaining the broad
> outlines of how KAM shows that the GS matters for SS dynamics. Take
> less than, say, 30 lines, use maths where possible rather than words.
> Then we can see which bits are contentious and which not.
>
> And (following up hints) state clearly whether these results apply
> only to a pure newetonian-gravitating system, or if they apply to
> the real solar system which is relativistic, includes radiation
> pressure, and drag from solar wind, etc etc.
I see that you prefer the imperative mood, which should not be used among
peers, and want it simple, without detail, and at the same time utterly
complicated. Can you show me mathematical formulae that describe a
relativistic solar system together with radiation pressure and phenomena of
solar activity like the solar wind? There is not even an acknowledged
theory of solar activity.
You did not shun minute details when you criticized my 1988 paper in
Climate Change under the thread "Landscheidt cl ch (1989)" and spread
doubts about the solidity of data and results. By the way, you said that I
never presented science to the discussion group. What about the original
rainfall data and precise modern plots I sent you? They exactly confirm the
former results. It would be fine if you published the positive outcome of
this replication.
I will try to expose the red thread of the matter via text only, though a
picture tells more than a thousand words. Even then, a limit of less than
30 lines are a ridiculous restraint. I was told that this newsgroup is
characterized by unrestricted freedom. Who gave you the authority to set
such limits? An how come that you make use of the pluralis maiestatis (We
don't want ...). Did you ask all other participants in the discussion?
Theodor Landscheidt
wmconnolley
> > The material is new? How, then, can it be true that "since the
> > establishment of the KAM theorem by kolmogorov (1979)... it is an
> > acknowledged fact that the golden section plays an important role
> > in the solar system dynamics"?
> The material is new because it goes beyond Kolmogorov, Arnol'd, and
Moser
> though it is based on the mathemathical and physical foundation laid
by
> these mathematicians and physicists.
Vague. It seems to me clear from the quote above that you are
implying that the KAM stuff (from 1979 at the least) is generally
accepted as proving your results. Now you say this isn't so: more
things (as yet unnamed) than KAM are required. If that is so, then
the paper the quote is from is under-referenced.
What, in the context above, does "an acknowledged fact" mean?
Presumably, shown by pub in a respected journal. Which?
> I see that you prefer the imperative mood...
you asked a question, you got an answer.
> and want it simple, without detail...
Nope, I want to see the rough heads of the argument before we dive
into detail. Regurgitating word/WP documents at us wouldn't help.
> Can you show me math formulae which describe a relatavistic
> solar system together with radiation pressure and phenomena of
> solar activity like the solar wind? There is not even an acknowledged
> theory of solar activity.
Aha, this is a very interesting question. Obviously you expect the
answer "no: no one can". Excellent: we can end the discussion here.
If no-one can provide the basic formulation to work with, there can
clearly be no theorems proving any properties of the system.
> You did not shun minute details when you criticized my 1988 paper in
> Climate Change under the thread "Landscheidt cl ch (1989)" and spread
> doubts about the solidity of data and results.
Indeed no, I provided very specific details which showed that at least
one of the figures in that paper was mislabelled.
> By the way, you said that I
> never presented science to the discussion group. What about the
original
> rainfall data and precise modern plots I sent you? They exactly
confirm the
> former results. It would be fine if you published the positive outcome
of
> this replication.
You sent me the rainfall data (though that was me, and only data, not
science).
But I thank-you for the data. I can confirm that this data
agrees with the stuff I subsequently found on the web. These data,
however, do not confirm (or deny) the substantive results of the paper:
the solar-rainfall connections you propose. That remains to be done.
However, lets not get into that there: we're on GS/SS here.
> Even then, a limit of less than
> 30 lines are a ridiculous restraint.
Then use what you like, and stop whinging. I was only making a
suggestion, in response to your question.
So far, you've complained a lot, but not got us one step closer (except
your rather interesting question re ability to describe the solar
system) to the point at issue: the connection between the GS and
the SS dynamics (preferrably the real SS, but if necessary the
pure-newtonian approximation).
-W.
--
W. M. Connolley | http://www.wmc.care4free.net
No, I haven't lost my job: NERC's newserver has become intolerable...
Personal capacity again, of course.
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
Stop whinging ... So far, you've complained a lot, but not got us
one step closer (except your rather interesting question re ability to
describe the solar
system) to the point at issue: the connection between the GS and
the SS dynamics (preferrably the real SS, but if necessary the
pure-newtonian approximation).
If someone is compelled to respond to your rhetoric and polemics, he
is "whinging" or complaining. It was you who prevented me from dealing
with essentials. When I inoffensively and factually remarked: "As most
of the material is new and cannot be found in the readily available literature,
I would have to begin with a longer exposé",
you quite unnecessarily started a polemic attack: "The material is
new? How, then, can it be true that 'since the establishment of the KAM
theorem by Kolmogorov (1979)... it is an acknowledged fact that the golden
section plays an important role
in the solar system dynamics'?"
My answer "The material is new because it goes beyond Kolmogorov, Arnol'd,
and
Moser though it is based on the mathemathical and physical foundation
laid by these mathematicians and physicists" should have been enough to
let me go to the main topic. Yet you responded:
Vague. It seems to me clear from the quote above that you are
implying that the KAM stuff (from 1979 at the least) is generally
accepted as proving your results. Now you say this isn't so: more
things (as yet unnamed) than KAM are required. If that is so, then
the paper the quote is from is under-referenced.What, in the context above, does "an acknowledged fact" mean?
Presumably, shown by pub in a respected journal. Which?
In a serious scientific discussion it can be expected that those who contribute critical postings know the literature. If you had read the quoted papers by Kolmogorov, Arnol'd, and Moser you would know that they investigate the distribution of disturbed periodic or quasiperiodic orbits on phase space tori in non-linear Hamilton systems free of dissipation. Their result that irrational parameters stabilize potentially unstable systems is valid for all dynamical systems free of dissipation including planetary systems, whether Newtonian or relativistic.
It has been shown that the golden number G = 0.618 ... is the most irrational of all numbers as its continued fraction representation is [1,1,1,...]. So it is an established fact that G has the function of a stabilizing parameter in the solar system (e. g. Richter, P. H., 1987, The Golden Section in Nature, in: Küppers, B. O., Order Emerging from Chaos, Piper, Munich, 175-214). You could avoid this conclusion only when you proved that Kolmogorov, Arnol'd, and Moser and mathematicians like C. L.Siegel (Iteration of Analytic Functions, Ann. Math. 43, 607-612 [1942]) are wrong. Meanwhile there is evidence that even in microcosmic dynamic systems free of dissipation (Molecules on the brink of instability) G has a stabilizing function (e. g. Child, M. S., 1993, Nonlinearity in Atoms and Molecules, in Mullin, T., The Nature of Chaos, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 272).
It should be clear that I need not provide evidence of this basis as
it is well established in science though some physicists do not know about
it. As I correctly stated, what I have to present is new because it goes
beyond the established results.
I could describe in detail where and when the stabilizing function
of G can be tracked down in the solar system and how the results can be
checked by forecasts of solar activity and climate phenomena. I intended
to do this in this discussion. Meanwhile, I could infer from style and
content of your postings that the debate would go nowhere. So I will stop
here and refer those who are interested to publications in the making.
Theodor Landscheidt
wmconnolley
"Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.l...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [KAM]
> investigate the distribution of disturbed periodic or quasiperiodic
> orbits on phase space tori in non-linear Hamilton systems free of
> dissipation.
OK, that seems clear enough. However, the solar system, it seems to
me, is dissapative: frictional forces, however small, are at work
[call for experts here: Stein, perhaps...?].
That would seem to indicate that the theorem does not apply.
> Their result that irrational parameters stabilize potentially unstable
> systems is valid for all dynamical systems free of dissipation
> including planetary systems, whether Newtonian or relativistic.
Um, in the previous paragraph a condition was that the systems be
"Hamiltonian". Is the relatavistic solar system Hamiltonian (even
the idealised version, without dissapation)?
> It has been shown that the golden number G = 0.618 ... is the most
> irrational of all numbers
It has been shown that this is one way of looking at it. Another way
is to say that numbers are irrational or not: this is my perspective.
Now, these are but words: the question is, does KAM take any account
of your prespective and privilege G?
> So it is an established fact that G has the function of a
> stabilizing parameter in the solar system
If you mean "so" as in "from this, we see" then you are missing out a
lot logical steps. You seem to have jumped from "KAM-says-irrat-stab",
though "aha! g is irrat" to "thus g stabailises".
You have missed out:
1 - does KAM apply to the SS? quite likely not, it would seem
1.5-you have asserted a priviliged status for g within the irrationals.
Does KAM recognise this status in any way?
2 - is the SS unstable: KAM will only be relevant if it is
3 - is G a param of the SS?
4 - if it is (unlikely to be demonstrable: see below), its only one
of many: how do you know its the vital one?
Now 3, in particular, would seem to be rather hard to demonstrate.
How could you possibly know that G, exactly, was a parameter? Any
number (orbital periods, ratios, sizes, anything) measured can only
be done to a certain accuracy. Whether it was G, or G +/- 0.0001, or
G +/- 1e-99999, you couldn'd know exactly. Which matters little in
ordinary affairs, but if you need exactly G (as you do), then its
vital.
-W.
--
W. M. Connolley | http://www.wmc.care4free.net
No, I haven't lost my job: NERC's newserver has become intolerable....
Posting, as ever, in a personal capacity.
Josh Halpern
Hanson, you are forgiven much. You earned the get
out of jail free card.
josh halpern
Josh Halpern
> Ian and John,
>
> I do not find that my situation would be better if I grew a thicker thin. It
> can also not be compared with criticizing work or character of a scientist. If
> it is alleged that a scientist is an astrologer, this is kind of a death
> sentence. She or he will no longer get funding, her or his papers will no longer
> be published, and colleagues will sneer at her or him.
>
> I have got such effects. P. D. Farrar did not only tell an amusing anecdote, but
> assured a colleague who presented a paper at the same conference in Tenerife
> where I presented papers that I am an astrologer. This scientist spred the news
> in Tenerife where colleagues I had known for decades did no longer talk to me.
>
> P. D. Farrar has told lengthy stories to provide evidence that I am a
> professional astrologer, as for instance under the thread "Landscheidt cl ch
> (1989)". This had the effect that one of my papers I recently submitted for
> publication was explicitly rejected on the grounds that I am an astrologer. I
> think that this is serious enough to justify a serious response. If someone
> continuously calls you an astrologer though you are a scientist, and this not in
> your presence when you can defend yourself, but behind your back, how can you
> defend yourself if not publicly.
> Regards,
> Theodor
I am somewhat confused by this. You appear to be claiming harm
because Paul Farrar told others that you were an astrologer, but
even a small search shows that many others besides Paul Farrar call you
an astrologer, indeed, it appears to be is a general identification in the
astrology community on the web. Moreover, you have published
articles and books at least whose titles appear to indicate that you
are an astrologer. I have cited but a small fraction of these sites
below. This identification of you as an astrologer by astrologers,
would, it appears to me, be conclusive.
Are you also not the author of another book
cited from**************************
http://www.astrologyetal.com/astro.html
Astrology et al Books and Learning Center
Cosmic Cybernetics - The Foundation Of A Modern Astrology. LANDSCHEIDT
Theodor, Dr. $4.95 An anthology compiled for readers interested in Cosmobiology.
It is a summation of some essential concepts the author presented in articles &
talks.
************************************
and another***************************
http://www.wessexastrologer.com/plist1.htm
Sun-Earth-Man Theodore Landscheidt 8.95
Dr. Landscheidt illustrates how the world's climate, stock
market, ozone levels and many other phenomena move in time
with the planetary harmonies of our solar system. His findings,
supported by successful forecasts, will be of interest to both
the layman and student of practically every area of study.
*************************************
And author of a chapter in another book on astrological
methods
************************************
http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/research.html
Astrological Research Methods Volume 1: An ISAR Anthology,
edited by Mark Pottinger. Organised in three major sections:
The nature of research; research design, data collection and
analysis; special topics and future studies. Includes contributions
from leading researchers worldwide. Cost: US$29.95 (+ $3.95
postage for USA/Canada/Mexico, and $6.00 elsewhere). Copies
can ordered from ACS, 5521 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123
(Tel: 1 619 492 9919). ISBN 0-9646366-0-3. Contributors include:
Graham Douglas, Suitbert Ertel, Francoise Gauquelin, Nick
Kollerstrom, Theodor Landscheidt, Frank McGillion, Mike O'Neill
and Peter Roberts.
*****************************************
and many astrology sites do appear to refer to you as an astrologer
such as
*****************************************
http://www.iol.ie/~taeger/research/150astro.html
150 German Astrologers
58 LANDSCHEIDT, Theodor: 10. 3. 1927, 18h 08m MET, Bremen/D,
8° E 49' 53° N 05' - Jurist, astronomer, astrologer, author.
An outstanding pioneer of modern scientific astrology who tries
to integrate newest astronomical findings to enlarge the small
horizon of traditional astrology. In 1959 (!) he introduced
the galactic centre, followed by geocentric planet nodes, Transpluto,
heliocentric astrology as well as newest research of solar activity
cycles and much more. Facts which cannot be ignored by a future-
orientated astrology. Author of many scientific articles and
ephemeris. Books: 'Wir sind Kinder des Lichts' (1987),
'Sun-Earth-Man', 'Astrologie, Hoffnung auf eine neue
Wissenschaft'. Landscheidt lives now in Canada.
(TAE via personal statement (d) via his own rectification/- 18h
15m MET via BC)
http://www.visionone.net/~atlas/planetjulienne/welcome.htm
As President of I.S.A.R., she created for the first time
an international network of professional astrologers from
India to Germany, from Brazil to Canada, from the Philippines
to Japan, from Australia to the United States of America,
connecting astrologers, many of whom had never met, nor
ever before known of each other, nor ever before been able
to share their work with each other. Included were Dane
Rudhyar, Michel Gauquelin, Reinhold and Baldur Ebertin,
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, Walter Koch, Charles E. O. Carter,
Brigadier Roy Firebrace, B.V. Raman, Margaret Hone, Ken
Gillman, Axel Harvey, Ronald Davison, and many others.
***************************************
josh halpern
han...@quick.net
vze2...@verizon.net wrote:
> Hanson, you are forgiven much.
> You earned the get
> out of jail free card.
> josh halpern
Aye, thanks Josh,
"An out of jail free card? Wow!
I don’t know why. But this is cool and rad.
You mean you don't mind if I am on the loose again now?
You must have more faith in humanity than I have.
You are a man with a big heart.
All that not withstanding, seriously, Josh, kindly try to understand, I
was having fun at your expense, and I will of course do so again, for I
am quite incorrigible and I am actually learning something in the
process.
Especially from you,
hanson
PS: I am actively working towards my goal, for everybody to put me into
their killfile. As a very humble, modest and shy person, this is the
only chance for me to get into Ripley’s.
goldfish
han...@quick.net wrote:
> I am actively working towards my goal, for everybody to put me into
> their killfile. As a very humble, modest and shy person, this is the
> only chance for me to get into Ripley’s.
Dear Dr Hanson,
You just set off my irony detector.
The goal of being in everybody's killfile is impressively
ambitious. Such great ambition is the antithesis of a "humble,
modest and shy person".
Regards,
Peter Mott
han...@quick.net
goldfish <p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> Dear Dr Hanson,
> You just set off my irony detector.
Dear Rear Admiral Mott, Prof., PhD.
Hmmm, so you guys are still working on “irony”, aren’t you?
To my knowledge it has not been declassified, and hence I wonder,
Admiral, why you bring attention of this highly classified, "special
access" (also called "black") program named “irony” into this unsavory
NG, which is little more than a nonstop 24/7/52 cyber party, full of
bullshit and green turds, infected with and dominated by ex-commies
masking as environmentalists.
Now, since you have “let the cat out of the bag”, so to speak, let us
air what can be told. You, Admiral, do of course full well know that
the term and address function of “irony” was interchangeably used
with “Iron-y” in the early phases of the program. You and me do know
that “Iron-y”, had its origin in the Company’s favored interrogation
technique, which was used when the third degree failed. The
interrogatee, usually a recalcitrant communist spy, was simply
told: “we’ll put you now into “iron” until you “*y*odel””, hence “iron-
y”. This threat invariably produced the desired yodeling.
As the program progressed the dash (-) was dropped to make the project
name appear to be less mysterious but very common, as in
simple “irony”. This was at the stage when it went black as it was
discovered that any confession could be obtained remotely without the
crude techniques of “iron-y”.
Currently, numerous suspicions have arisen that “irony” is being used
very widely upon the public at large, these days.
Admiral, Sir, in case you try to victimize me with your
horrible “irony” detector, which you have in your possession and use, I
request that you redirect the capabilities of your machine against all
those vehement greenies and fanatical ex-pinkos in this here NG,
instead of investigating me, a badass redneck patriot.
While we are at it: Is it true that a part of “irony” is the Navy
version of FBI’s “carnivore”?
> The goal of being in everybody's
> killfile is impressively ambitious.
Oh, it certainly is, Admiral. Impressive indeed, yes, siree, I must say
so myself. Outstanding! Thank you. Being on the turf within the
killfile of the killfiler, does yield easy access to his/her habits,
which is highly productive undercover work, feeding into the
enigmatic “killfile factor”, which enjoys black box status as an
integral part of “irony”. But now, let’s just drop this at that.
> Such great ambition is the antithesis
> of a "humble, modest and shy person".
Wrong, Admiral, dead wrong. These “humble, modest and shy” attributes
are extremely stretchable and relative terms and fully compatible
with “badass redneck”, as in “humble, modest and shy badass redneck”,
after all, to compare, there exists “compassionate conservatism”
and “liberal dictatorships”, which are well and alive, all relying of
the same rubbery semantics.
Respectfully, Sir, Admiral,
hanson
PS: Any connection between “Landscheidt numbers & theorems” and “irony”
can not be confirmed nor denied, which should be understandable in view
of the just explained derivative elucidation above.
goldfish
han...@quick.net wrote:
> In article <3A06D0D3...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil>,
> goldfish <p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
> > Dear Dr Hanson,
> > You just set off my irony detector.
>
> Dear Rear Admiral Mott, Prof., PhD.
Dear Dr Hanson,
How about "the presumed Secretary of Defense
in the next administration" ? I like this -- it can be
used regardless of circumstance. BTW, in case you
think I'm jiving you, I audited a class in polymer physics
taught by someone that used this nomenclature, and
eventually made good of the title -- John Deutch.
(Let's leave the particulars of his fall from grace
unstated, OK?)
> Hmmm, so you guys are still working on “irony”, aren’t you?
>
> To my knowledge it has not been declassified, and hence I wonder,
> Admiral, why you bring attention of this highly classified, "special
> access" (also called "black") program named “irony” into this unsavory
> NG, which is little more than a nonstop 24/7/52 cyber party, full of
> bullshit and green turds, infected with and dominated by ex-commies
> masking as environmentalists.
I consider the still-commies to be the greatest threat to
truth, justice, and the American way. Unfortunately they,
and many others, do not know that this is indeed a party:
they think this is serious! Nevertheless, it is a good opportunity
to gather intelligence.
[inaccurate, but nevertheless intriguing, information alluding
to a number of classified programs snipped.]
> > The goal of being in everybody's
> > killfile is impressively ambitious.
>
> Oh, it certainly is, Admiral. Impressive indeed, yes, siree, I must say
> so myself. Outstanding! Thank you. Being on the turf within the
> killfile of the killfiler, does yield easy access to his/her habits,
> which is highly productive undercover work, feeding into the
> enigmatic “killfile factor”, which enjoys black box status as an
> integral part of “irony”. But now, let’s just drop this at that.
Is this an objective of the FBI Omnivore program?
Only the naive would believe that this was dropped.
The better informed, well, know better.
> > Such great ambition is the antithesis
> > of a "humble, modest and shy person".
>
> Wrong, Admiral, dead wrong. These “humble, modest and shy” attributes
> are extremely stretchable and relative terms and fully compatible
> with “badass redneck”, as in “humble, modest and shy badass redneck”,
> after all, to compare, there exists “compassionate conservatism”
> and “liberal dictatorships”, which are well and alive, all relying of
> the same rubbery semantics.
Point taken.
> Respectfully, Sir, Admiral,
> hanson
>
> PS: Any connection between “Landscheidt numbers & theorems” and “irony”
> can not be confirmed nor denied, which should be understandable in view
> of the just explained derivative elucidation above.
Regards,
Peter Mott