Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Evidence for Global Cooling

23 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

Evidence for Global Cooling

The evidence from orbiting temperature
sensing devices shows that the earth has been
COOLING slowly (about 0.06 degrees per
decade) since 1979, when satellites first started
taking global temperature measurements.

The recent Nature article establishes the
accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
the assertion that any global warming is occurring.
Surface based sensing stations cannot be regarded
as reliable, and the retreat of glaciers in
some parts of the world is countered by the fact
that glaciers are growing in other parts of
the world.

For the proof of global cooling check out
this site:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Actual charts of the satellite temperature data
can be found here:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm

The sensing systems have now been checked and
rechecked and verified by concurrent balloon based
sensing of the same sites- global COOLING is a reality.

The false doctrine of "global warming" is much like the
mistruth told in the IQ debate- science has been
corrupted by political pressures. Many scientific careers
are now bet on the false premise of Global Warming- but the
truth will eventually prevail and I predict that we will see the greatest
reversal in the history of science- and the most embarrassing.

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

William Connolley

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

In article c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" <efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:
>The recent Nature article establishes the
>accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
>the assertion that any global warming is occurring.

This is a misrepresentation. There is a recent (25/9/97) article by
Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the controversy
is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes, but even
they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.

But quite apart from this, S+C don't claim that the surface is cooling. They
accept that sfc measurements show warming, at least as far as I can judge from
their page. They attempt to reconcile the two, by claiming the atmospheric
structure is more complex thatn previously thought, but certainly don't
claim that the sfc is cooling.

>For the proof of global cooling check out this site:
>http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

I looked at the site, and found it disturbingly partisan. I have no complains about
the science there - mostly above my head without more effort than I cared
to put in - but the interpretative text around it is, to my view, somewhat
biased in favour of S+C. Trenberth is mentioned, but he is "conclusively
refuted" or some such - hardly a fair description of the current state of play.

And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the satellite
record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be occurring?
What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just cyclic?

- William

---
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself

Michael Tobis

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

William Connolley (w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk) wrote:

: And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the satellite


: record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be occurring?
: What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just cyclic?

John McCarthy coined the term (though I think I developed the idea
independently) of "lawyer's science". McCarthy seems to believe that
only "environmentalists" behave this way, but I think climate change is a
clear case to the contrary. The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of public opinion,
not to form a coherent theory. They are therefore eager to cast the
thorny questions of greenhouse emission public policy as a question of
guilt or innocence.

The people we hear from in usenet are as often as not the most
easily swayed members of the jury. That is, their philosophy is
ill-equipped to deal with global problems so they are strongly
inclined to deny the existence of such problems. (They are bolstered
by the existence of others whose philosophy is exactly oppositely
inclined!)

So when the facts say "a controversial satellite record, which
has the broadest possible area coverage but some potential bias, shows modest
cooling over its short record that, if proven valid, reflects a need for
weaker convective coupling to the middle atmosphere in general
circulation models", the propaganda says "The only way to get a
complete measurement of the entire world without the use of dubious
statistical techniques is from a satellite. And what does the satellite
record show? Lo and behold! (S + C reference) shows that the troposphere
has actually cooled! So where is this infamous global warming?" and the
susceptible self-righteous reader concludes that "So-called global warming is
a leftist conspiracy. The most accurate measurement is from satellites,
and these show the world is actually cooling!" Note that the propaganda
doesn't actually come out and *say* this, but it encourages the casual
reader to believe that this is what was said.

No offense to those few outliers from the consensus who actually
contribute to the science is intended here, particularly not
to Spencer and Christy nor to Richard Lindzen.

But most "skeptics" are not proposing any alternative hypothesis.
They merely operate from faith that human activity cannot inadvertently
modify climate. (Some of these people *also* believe that *deliberate*
climate modification, on earth or other planets, is possible. One
wonders how they manage to hold both ideas in their brains at the
same time.) When asked for a defense of their claims, they point to
carefully selected observational evidence. Since they have no
coherent alternative hypothesis, they are forced to believe
that the climate system has some special properties making it not
amenable to the methods of physical science!

(Both camps of lawyers invoke "chaos theory" without the slightest
idea of what it implies for climate science! This is particularly exasperating.
The claim usually amounts to "science has proven that you can't prove
anything. Ergo to be safe you should move toward Extreme_A/Extreme_B!"
That damned butterfly has already caused a lot more damage than one
lousy hurricane!)

Unfortunately, the analogy to a jury situation is strong here. People
are trying themselves and their own behavior as far as fossil fuel
consumption is concerned. The presumption of innocence means that the
defense lawyers' job is to promote doubt and confusion in the jury.
An alternative theory is a nicety that is rarely presented in
a practical litigation. The same is true of policy debates.

The "balance of evidence" is insufficient to convict under a presumption
of innocence. The majority of the skeptics' literature is designed to
promote the absurd model that it is the guilt or innocence of greenhouse
gases that is at stake, rather than finding a path through a continuum of
scenarios, some of them very alarming. Once this "yes/no" picture is
created (with the willing connivance of the press that loves a battle
and despises reasoned discourse) those with an economic interest at stake
can easily whip up "reasonable doubts" in the "jury".

Whenever responsible people play this game (witness the Chapter 8
controversy) they lose. It is essential that the discussion avoid
the "yes/no" flavor that the less responsible economic interests
are trying (with remarkable success) to push it into. The real
issue is finding the right balance between short run (construed as
economic) and long run (construed as environmental) risks and benefits.

No rational discussion would choose a policy of ignoring all risks on
one side until the other side is "convicted" of a crime. Unfortunately,
there are motivated individuals who benefit from this "criminal trial"
model on the extremes of this and many other issues. Both the public
in general and the relevant science in particular bear the costs of
abandoning discourse in favor of a jury trial model.

mt


John McCarthy

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

Michael Tobis includes:

John McCarthy coined the term (though I think I developed
the idea independently) of "lawyer's science". McCarthy
seems to believe that only "environmentalists" behave this
way, but I think climate change is a clear case to the
contrary. The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of
public opinion, not to form a coherent theory. They are
therefore eager to cast the thorny questions of greenhouse
emission public policy as a question of guilt or innocence.

I have to agree that a substantial amount of the arguments
against the occurrence of global warming are lawyers' science.
Nevertheless, global warming is still uncertain.

I still favor waiting before taking drastic
action, the costs of which will be very high. Tom Moore is
probably right that the main effects of global warming will be
benign.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


Michael Tobis

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein (efr...@worldsciuni.com) wrote:

...
<multiple repetitions of essentially a paragraph or so of stuff
obtainable from mass media misinformation with absolutely no
sign of requested supporting evidence>
...

: Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

Since you insist on claiming this credential, perhaps you could tell
us what sort of doctorate you hold, when and from what institution
it was obtained, your thesis title if any, and what bearing it has on the
discussion?

mt <-- suspected, on the internet, of being a dog>


Don Libby

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

Michael Tobis wrote:
>
snip

> No rational discussion would choose a policy of ignoring all risks on
> one side until the other side is "convicted" of a crime. Unfortunately,
> there are motivated individuals who benefit from this "criminal trial"
> model on the extremes of this and many other issues. Both the public
> in general and the relevant science in particular bear the costs of
> abandoning discourse in favor of a jury trial model.
>
> mt

An astute observation, and a depressing one at that, since I believe
history shows the outcome tilts in favor of non-science (or non-sense?)
- Galileo lost, Rome won, Clarence Darrow lost, William Jennings Bryan
won, etc.
--
Donald L. Libby (dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu)
To reply by e-mail -- remove nospam! from the address line.
Opinions are my own.
Visit: http://www.biostat.wisc.edu/prevmed/network/

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to


William Connolley <w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk> wrote in article
<344c9...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>...


> In article c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
<efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:
> >The recent Nature article establishes the
> >accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
> >the assertion that any global warming is occurring.
>

> [....] There is a recent (25/9/97) article by


> Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
> this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the
controversy
> is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes,
but even
> they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.

The evidence is plain in my view- the satellite data has now been proven
conclusively to be accurate. Multiple satellites and balloons
measuring the same site obtain identical temperatures. The
satellite sensors are so sensitive that they detect atmospheric
warming caused by a full moon. The satellites orbit the globe,
measuring the entire planet precisely (not just one
isolated glacier or continent), as no other measurement
system can hope to do. The atmosphere is cooling
at all depths measured. Slow Global Cooling is the new reality.

>
> But quite apart from this, S+C don't claim that the surface is cooling.
They
> accept that sfc measurements show warming, at least as far as I can judge
from
> their page. They attempt to reconcile the two, by claiming the
atmospheric
> structure is more complex thatn previously thought, but certainly don't
> claim that the sfc is cooling.

The subtle language employed by the satellite people
does little to hide their actual views- they are just being polite.
Anyone can see what they are truly implying- that
Global Warming is not happening. Political pressure prevents
them from speaking more strongly on the issue- they
fear for their jobs should they speak the heresy aloud.


>
> >For the proof of global cooling check out this site:
> >http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
>
> I looked at the site, and found it disturbingly partisan. I have no
complains about
> the science there - mostly above my head without more effort than I cared
> to put in - but the interpretative text around it is, to my view,
somewhat
> biased in favour of S+C. Trenberth is mentioned, but he is "conclusively
> refuted" or some such - hardly a fair description of the current state of
play.

After examining the data, I believe it is fair to say that the satellite
data
has now been conclusively proven to be accurate.
Many scientists who have placed their prestige on the
line supporting Global Warming are now in a state of denial-
but the satellite data persists, grows stronger each year, and
the reality of slow Global Cooling cannot be ignored any longer.

>
> And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the
satellite
> record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be
occurring?
> What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just
cyclic?
>

> - William
> ---
> William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk |
http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
> Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for
myself

One thing that is surely heating up is the growing conflict
between the satellite people and the Global warming advocates.
The satellite people have been silenced by political
pressures long enough- they are now starting to speak up.
The best data shows that slow Global Cooling is an empirical
reality. Theory must match observation.

As for the reasons slow Global Cooling is occurring, there are many
possibilities. Ice core studies clearly show rapid historical
temperature variation is the norm for our planet. Whatever the cause
it is seems to be overpowering any greenhouse effect- perhaps particulate
atmospheric contamination is a good candidate.

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

Paul D. Farrar

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

On 21 Oct 97 11:40:14 GMT, w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William
Connolley) wrote:

>In article c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" <efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:
>>The recent Nature article establishes the
>>accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
>>the assertion that any global warming is occurring.
>

>This is a misrepresentation. There is a recent (25/9/97) article by


>Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
>this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the controversy
>is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes, but even
>they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.
>

>But quite apart from this, S+C don't claim that the surface is cooling. They
>accept that sfc measurements show warming, at least as far as I can judge from
>their page. They attempt to reconcile the two, by claiming the atmospheric
>structure is more complex thatn previously thought, but certainly don't
>claim that the sfc is cooling.
>

>>For the proof of global cooling check out this site:
>>http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
>
>I looked at the site, and found it disturbingly partisan. I have no complains about
>the science there - mostly above my head without more effort than I cared
>to put in - but the interpretative text around it is, to my view, somewhat
>biased in favour of S+C. Trenberth is mentioned, but he is "conclusively
>refuted" or some such - hardly a fair description of the current state of play.

So how do you feel about the employment of a shill? Remember the Dave
Dooling character who keeps popping by to tell us about the wonderful
MSFC Web pages? According to his own Web pages, he is a public
relations man for Marshall Space Flight Center (Spencer's employer).
He also posts his discoveries from their computers. Note also the
stylistic similarities between Dooling posts and the MSFC pages.
(Note also the similarities to Goldstein's. He seems to have gotten
more of his post from the Web pages than from Nature.)

I was very disappointed by the exchange in Nature. (It is in
"Scientific Correspondence", rather than an article as Goldstein
says, since it is discussion of a paper (Hurrell and Trenberth) rather
than a research paper.) I would like to have seen Christy and Spencer
attempt to show that H&T's reasons for saying calibration shifts
sneaked into the record (when it was stitched together from different
instruments) were invalid. H&T based this on shifts they found in the
relations between other climatic variables and the MSU2R readings at
the time of instrument changes. Perhaps C&S will try in a later
publication. For this one, they simply reiterated previous claims of
validity. I'm not saying I buy H&T's thesis, either, but it can be
difficult to prevent calibration shifts when remotely determining the
calibration tweaks for splicing together records from instruments that
don't read the same out of the box and aren't in the same orbit. It's
going to get worse: the instrument design is being updated. I don't
know if the new one has been launched yet.

Most satellite meteorology books, such as Kidder and VonderHaar, have
a simple discussion of these instruments. For those wanted something
more detailed, one possibility is Grody's chapter in Janssen's
_Atmospheric remote sensing by microwave radiometry_ .

>
>And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the satellite
>record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be occurring?
>What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just cyclic?
>
>- William
>
>---
>William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
>Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
>
>

So why does "World Science University" have a .com address?

--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to


Don Libby <dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<344D0D...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> >
> snip


> > The subtle language employed by the satellite people
> > does little to hide their actual views- they are just being polite.
> > Anyone can see what they are truly implying- that
> > Global Warming is not happening. Political pressure prevents
> > them from speaking more strongly on the issue- they
> > fear for their jobs should they speak the heresy aloud.

> snip
> >
> > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
>
> Fear for their jobs, eh? Perhaps this explains the good doctor's need
> to fabricate a false identity to hide behind? Judging from his
> fascination for ethnic variation in IQ scores as it relates to
> proportional representation in the media and educational institutions,
> I'd have to guess he is another run-of-the mill net nazi, maybe even the
> infamous Jeremy Miller himself. Not content to refer to yourself as
> "anonymous nobody" any more? Fine. You'll go on being one just the
> same.

> --
> Donald L. Libby (dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu)
>

You have proven my point with your reply. I response to my
presenting the satellite data for global cooling you call me
a "Nazi" and use personal attacks! Anyone who dares dispute
the "established fact" of global warming is now subject to
kind of persecution you have just demonstrated.

The satellite data is clear and proven to be accurate-
and it shows that the Earth is slowly COOLING.
There are NO other reliable systems for measuring
global temperature- none!

Environmental politics is corrupting science on this issue.
The best evidence shows that global warming is not happening.

For the proof of global cooling check out
this site:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Actual charts of the satellite temperature data


Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

Paul D. Farrar

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:51:15 GMT, far...@datasync.com (Paul D. Farrar)
wrote:

[...]


>
>So how do you feel about the employment of a shill? Remember the Dave
>Dooling character who keeps popping by to tell us about the wonderful
>MSFC Web pages? According to his own Web pages, he is a public
>relations man for Marshall Space Flight Center (Spencer's employer).
>He also posts his discoveries from their computers. Note also the
>stylistic similarities between Dooling posts and the MSFC pages.
>(Note also the similarities to Goldstein's. He seems to have gotten
>more of his post from the Web pages than from Nature.)

[...]

Let me clarify. I am not saying Dr. Goldstein of World Science
University.com is a shill. He is a Usenet Personality, and he is
here to save the world, mainly from reproduction by persons of
low IQ scores, as well as climatologists. (Hmm...)

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to


Paul D. Farrar <far...@datasync.com> wrote in article
<344d417d...@news.datasync.com>...


>
> Let me clarify. I am not saying Dr. Goldstein of World Science
> University.com is a shill. He is a Usenet Personality, and he is
> here to save the world, mainly from reproduction by persons of
> low IQ scores, as well as climatologists. (Hmm...)
>

> Paul D. Farrar

More personal attacks! This is the fate of anyone who dares point
out that global satellite data proves that global warming is
not happening.

The satellite data is clear, unambiguous, and now proven
to be correct. Slow global COOLING is the new
scientific reality.

Let me remind you that Science is not about what we want,
what is good or bad, it is not about desired outcomes or
what is best politically- science is about facts.

The best data available now shows that the earth is slowly cooling-
that global warming is not happening. There are NO reliable
systems for measuring global temperature variation
other than satellites! None! And the satellite data is solid.

For the evidence of global cooling check out

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to


Michael Tobis <to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<62ils0$i...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
> [....]


> So when the facts say "a controversial satellite record, which
> has the broadest possible area coverage but some potential bias, shows
modest
> cooling over its short record that, if proven valid, reflects a need for
> weaker convective coupling to the middle atmosphere in general
> circulation models", the propaganda says "The only way to get a
> complete measurement of the entire world without the use of dubious
> statistical techniques is from a satellite. And what does the satellite
> record show? Lo and behold! (S + C reference) shows that the troposphere
> has actually cooled! So where is this infamous global warming?" and the
> susceptible self-righteous reader concludes that "So-called global
warming is
> a leftist conspiracy. The most accurate measurement is from satellites,
> and these show the world is actually cooling!" Note that the propaganda
> doesn't actually come out and *say* this, but it encourages the casual

> reader to believe that this is what was said.[................]
> mt
>
You have rationalized the satellite evidence away without
any serious consideration that it may be true- that the
earth may indeed be cooling. Why the denial? The satellite data is the best
system we have for measuring global temperature variation-
the ONLY reliable system for taking global measurements.
That evidence grows stronger every year- that the earth is slowly
cooling..... that is the new truth of the matter.

Occam's Razor anyone?

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein


John Daly

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

Michael Tobis wrote:

> The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
> arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of public opinion,
> not to form a coherent theory. They are therefore eager to cast the
> thorny questions of greenhouse emission public policy as a question of
> guilt or innocence.

John Daly replies:

The skeptics are not demanding sacrifices of anyone, are not threatening
the public with carbon taxes, restrictions on motor vehicles, or home
heating. The pro-warming lobby is the side making all the demands for
draconian policies. That being the case, the onus of proof of the
urgency of any action rests with them, not the skeptics.

> But most "skeptics" are not proposing any alternative hypothesis.

Wrong again. The skeptics have a coherent theory that carbon dioxide, a
trace gas, will only have a trace effect on climate. Global warming of
about +0.25 deg within the next 100 years is a common prediction by many
of the skeptics, a prediction fully consistent with physical data coming
in from around the world (satellites, ground-based non-urban
temperatures, high latitude temperatures etc.)

If you want that alternative hypothesis formally described, my own
website provides one such description at
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/miniwarm.htm

The filename `miniwarm' was very appropriate for the hypothesis being
put. But as I said earlier, the skeptics do not need to present any
alternative hypothesis at all since it is not they who are creating the
hysteria or demanding totalitarian measures against a non-problem.

> They merely operate from faith that human activity cannot inadvertently
> modify climate.

Quite wrong again. We have already modified climate, are doing so now,
and will do so in the future. But these modifications are marginal, as
per the +0.25 deg warming prediction above.

> (Some of these people *also* believe that *deliberate*
> climate modification, on earth or other planets, is possible. One
> wonders how they manage to hold both ideas in their brains at the
> same time.)

Climate modification has only been suggested (not by skeptics
necessarily) to achieve local or regional effects, such as damming the
Bering Strait etc. The effect of such measures would be tiny on a
global basis, but may be noticeable on a regional level (eg. slight
rainfall changes). Here in Tasmania, we do it all the time with cloud
seeding to fill hydro-electric dams.

> When asked for a defense of their claims, they point to
> carefully selected observational evidence. Since they have no
> coherent alternative hypothesis, they are forced to believe
> that the climate system has some special properties making it not
> amenable to the methods of physical science!

Wrong again. We invoke primarily physical evidence and physical
science. Modelling, which is what the pro-warmers rely on is not
science, just a caricature of science. This is particularly so if the
models fail to make valid predictions and if they are used as a tool to
discredit observations. In recent years, they have become political
tools, not scientific ones.

> (Both camps of lawyers invoke "chaos theory" without the slightest

> idea of what it implies for climate science!)

But we do know what it does to climate models. It makes them over-react
to small input changes. especially so when non-linear positive feedback
equations are used (Stefan-Boltzmann equation)

> This is particularly exasperating.

Life was'nt meant to be easy.



> An alternative theory is a nicety that is rarely presented in
> a practical litigation. The same is true of policy debates.

The skeptics are a whisper battling a megaphone. The fact we are heard
says more about the strength of what we say than about the
susceptibilities of the audience.



> The majority of the skeptics' literature is designed to
> promote the absurd model that it is the guilt or innocence of greenhouse
> gases that is at stake, rather than finding a path through a continuum of
> scenarios, some of them very alarming.

You miss the point here. Are we to tell the public that they must
endure a draconian, even totalitarian, energy regime with the mother of
all taxes, on the strength of only ONE of those scenarios? Until and
unless it can be conclusively shown BY REFERENCE TO OBSERVATIONS, NOT
MODELS, that there will be significant warming, or that such warming
will be harmful, then the skeptics have both the right and obligation to
tell the world's public that all their self-inflicted economic pain is
likely to be in vain and condemn hundreds of millions of people to
unemployment and poverty.

> Whenever responsible people play this game (witness the Chapter 8
> controversy) they lose.

Hardly lose. The IPCC is now seen as a political/bureaucratic body by
the public, not a scientific one. That perception is also an accurate
one.

> It is essential that the discussion avoid
> the "yes/no" flavor that the less responsible economic interests
> are trying (with remarkable success) to push it into.

You can avoid it all you like, but that's what you will be served up
with both before and after Kyoto. Even if a treaty is signed, the
campaign against poverty will go on, every tax will be fought, every
restriction will be resisted, and political candidates will indulge the
Green obsessions at their peril. Signing treaties is the easy bit (a
stroke of the pen), enforcing them is something else, and that's where
the Kyoto treaty will hit the dust.

> The real
> issue is finding the right balance between short run (construed as
> economic) and long run (construed as environmental) risks and benefits.

"Balance" is a soft, intellectually decadent concept. You must win or
lose, there's no balance or half-measures, just as there is no balance
in the scientific debate. The models are right or they are wrong. I am
fully satisfied they are wrong - based on physical evidence which
contradicts their key outputs (eg. polar warming).

> No rational discussion would choose a policy of ignoring all risks on
> one side until the other side is "convicted" of a crime.

By all means, we may have a rational discussion, but if you expect the
skeptics to engage in such discussion with the threat of poverty and
carbon taxes hanging over society, then think again. No free man
engages in `rational discussion' under duress. Take away the
hysterical push for `action now' and debate can become cooler and more
rational. Until then, we will do what you are doing - campaigning for
what we believe with all the resources we can muster.

> Unfortunately,
> there are motivated individuals who benefit from this "criminal trial"

> model ...

For goodness sake, at least drop that word `model'. It's becoming a
worn-out cliche. And would you class yourself as `un-motivated'?

> Both the public
> in general and the relevant science in particular bear the costs of
> abandoning discourse in favor of a jury trial model.

The adversary system, of which jury trials are a part, are a much better
system for extracting the truth than the closed peer-review system which
has become corrupted in recent times by political and ideological
pressures. We would gladly accept any challenge to put our view up to
public trial. But would you?

John Daly
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly

William Connolley

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

In article j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" <efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:

>William Connolley <w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>

>> [....] There is a recent (25/9/97) article by


>> Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
>> this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the
>> controversy
>> is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes,
>> but even
>> they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.

>The evidence is plain in my view- the satellite data has now been proven
>conclusively to be accurate.

Hmmm... but its not plain in my view, nor in Trenberths view. Why do you think
I should prefer your opinion to Trenberths? Do you claim more expertise than him?

>The atmosphere is cooling at all depths measured.

No, the near-surface (1.5m) measurements show warming, and over a far longer period.

>The subtle language employed by the satellite people

>does little to hide their actual views...

I think I'll stick to reading what they actually say.

>but the satellite data persists, grows stronger each year, and
>the reality of slow Global Cooling cannot be ignored any longer.

Even S+C don't claim that their results show a *significant* cooling - so
why are you claiming it?

>> And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the
>satellite
>> record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be
>occurring?

>The satellite people have been silenced by political
>pressures long enough

Could we stick to science, please?

>As for the reasons slow Global Cooling is occurring, there are many
>possibilities. Ice core studies clearly show rapid historical
>temperature variation is the norm for our planet.

This is twaddle. Rapid change is extremely uncommon in the ice core record, if indeed
it ever occurs at the rates theory suggests we will see in the near (50y) future.
What proportion of the last 100 kyr do you think has seen global sfc temperatures
change at > .1 oC/decade, then? If you think that rapid change is the norm,
presumably you believe it occurs more than 50% of the time. I would guess less
than 1%.

- William.

Onar Aam

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

>The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
>arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of public opinion,
>not to form a coherent theory. They are therefore eager to cast the
>thorny questions of greenhouse emission public policy as a question of
>guilt or innocence.

In science there is a rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so
extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence. Does such
extraordinary evidence exist? No. In fact, even by "ordinary" scientific
standards the evidence are scarce. Doing weather forecasts 100 years into
the future is hazardous to put it mildly.
In a court room the same logic applies, extraordinary claims
(i.e. of guilt) requires extraordinary evidence. Therefore the lawyers'
science is perfectly legit in this case.


Onar.


Hydratwo

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

>From: on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
>Date: Wed, Oct 22, 1997 14:38 EDT
>Message-id:

states:

> In a court room the same logic applies, extraordinary claims
>(i.e. of guilt) requires extraordinary evidence. Therefore the lawyers'
>science is perfectly legit in this case.

What is the lawyers science? I have been involved as an expert witness in legal
environmental (haz waste mainly) cases. From my limited experience would not
consider this science as much as word smithing. In any case, I agree that long
term prediction is sketchy at best (definatly not my expertise), but climatic
changes with respect to geologic time are common. If it can happen in the past
could happen in the future.

Can large scale events drastically change weather patterns on a small scale?
Most likely. Take the example of when (excuse sp.) Krakatoa erupted, from what
I remember reading many of the NE US states had a winter without end due to
the dust in the atmosphere.

Onar Aam

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

Daly writes:
>If you want that alternative hypothesis formally described, my own
>website provides one such description at
> http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/miniwarm.htm


I've read your page quite thoroughly and while I think you make
legitimate points there are also very many things that at best are
inaccureately presented, or at worst completely wrong. In order to
reduce the ring of toy-science from the skeptics' camp you should
address these points. On your page you write:

"The present energy `flux' at the surface of the earth is 387 watts
per square metre (wm-2), 148 wm-2 of which results directly from the
recycling action of the Greenhouse Effect. The other 239 wm-2 is solar
insolation, ie. light and heat energy from the sun reaching the surface."


It has been pointed out that there is NOT radiative balance at the
surface. There is a lot more radiation coming in to the surface than
going out. Therefore you must at the very least specify that the 387
wm-2 number is longwave IR radation _from_ the surface. The same problem
recurs later on your page when you calculate greenhouse radiation at
different latitudes. Again it seems that you (wrongly) assume radiative
balance. It has been pointed out that it looks like you are calculating
"greenhouse radiation" subracting solar radiation from LWIR upward
radiation. If this is the case then you should correct it. If your numbers
are based on the upward longwave IR radiation then you should explicitly
state so and disregard downward atmospheric radiation altogether.

Even though there is no radiative balance at the surface it is legitimate
to assume total heat flux balance since the temperature at the surface on
average is in balance. This means that the extra energy disappears into
other drains (primarily upward convection). HOWEVER, even though it is
legitimate you have to state explicitly why it is legitimate.


Furthermore you use the differences in radiation (LWIR data if I'm correct)
and temperature at the poles and the equator to calculate K/wm-2. This
method gives an unreasonably low figure since there is a constant
transport of heat from the equator to the poles. This should be accounted
for.


Finally, using short term cyclic variations in equatorial temperature due
to the eccentricity of the earth orbit is not necessarily indicative of
the change in temperature of a permanent change in the solar constant. This
is readily demonstrated by the variations in the solar constant due to
internal processes in the sun. Variations in solar radiation within 11-year
cycles do not show up in the global temperature data because the cycle
length is too short for an equilibrial response to the change. Therefore it
is unlikely that the current cyclic variation is as large as the change due
to a permanent 7% reduction in solar radiation.

Onar.

Michael Tobis

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

iI thank John Daly for his fine exemplar of just the sort of
divisive invective that I refer to.

The ownership of the word "draconian" must be conceded to
the skeptics. The "burden of proof" arguments he proposes
are pure manipulation of symbols and can be matched, shiver
for shiver, by genuinely "draconian" arguments.

He attributes his position to "data" and opposes this to "models"
as if there would be no evidence of a problem in the absence of
computers.

He even falls for the bait and blithers incoherently about chaos!
(As far as I can tell, his response on that point was meaningless.)

He makes the usual selections of observational evidence and manages
to see what he desires, and then insists (while accusing his opponents
of a totalitarian motivation!) that no action can even be contemplated
unless the data satisfies him in some unspecified way. The casual reader
may miss the point that this amounts to a recipe for inaction until
such time as action is long overdue, perhaps catastrophically so.

He pauses briefly to add a bit to the ludicrous slanders of the IPCC
scientific working group, and offers us the following divisive,
intemperate, and substantively false assertion:

: "Balance" is a soft, intellectually decadent concept. You must win or


: lose, there's no balance or half-measures, just as there is no balance
: in the scientific debate. The models are right or they are wrong. I am
: fully satisfied they are wrong - based on physical evidence which
: contradicts their key outputs (eg. polar warming).

Then he goes on to challenge the science to a debate in a courtroom!
I respectfully decline if the answer is to be reduced to a single
bit. Models, computer or otherwise, are neither true nor false.
They are merely more or less useful. Every decision of any kind is
based on a model. The extent of involvement of a computer is not
particularly essential. The focus on computer models rather than
theory as developed, in part, through use of such models, comes
from the political fringes, not the scientific center.

However, he does offer us a pointer to what he claims are substantive
arguments:

: If you want that alternative hypothesis formally described, my own


: website provides one such description at
: http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/miniwarm.htm


Unfortunately he loses me in the first paragraph. His entire argument
appears based on a surface infrared flux change of under 2 watts
per CO2 doubling. This amounts to assuming the conclusion he wants.
His only reference for this matter is not fully identified.

He does acknowledge the widely accepted figure that the radiative
imbalance at the tropopause under a CO2 doubling is 4 w/m^2, but
he does not explain how this is balanced in the middle atmosphere,
allowing for a smaller change at the surface.

His argument in section 1 is incompatible with his argument in section 2
by elementary reasoning, left as an exercise for the reader. Section
2 shares the unsubstantiated assumption of section1, however.

His argument in section 3 is invalid, as it fails to account for
horizontal heat transfer. Under the same logic, the temperature at
the equator would in fact be much higher than is observed. However,
there is a heat transfer mechanism away from the equator, called
"weather" which tends to smooth out temperature shifts due to local
forcing. This does not apply to global forcing. Sections 4 and 5
suffer from the same fallacy.

As far as the argument in section 6 goes, I believe that both the
observed cooling and the observed change in radiation at the surface
have been misstated. It is my understanding that current knowledge
as emodied in GCMs correctly predicted the global temperature shift
of about half a degree Celsius.

None of these arguments constitute a coherent theory as to what happens
to the extra energy. All of them conveniently ignore water vapor
feedback, paleoclimate evidence and the historical record.

Of course, that's not the point. The effort here isn't to do science,
it's to simulate science, to find some simulation of expertise to
balance real expertise in the eyes of a jury. This technology, as
I say, is alarmingly well-developed because it's highly motivated
in numerous circumstances, therefore it's well-funded.

This is, in my opinion, at the heart of the decline of democratic politics.

It's particularly exasperating for me to be lumped in with the
"draconians". Early response is intended to *avoid* abrupt "draconian"
shifts in the economic system, not to promote them by procrastination.

I begin to wonder whether it is not the *same* interests promoting
irresponsible paranoia about greenhouse emission restraint on one
side of the political spectrum *and* irresponsible paranoia about
nuclear power on the other. Both present a much bigger threat to
coal interests than to anyone else. Neither is being discussed
sensibly in the public sphere in the face of virulent propaganda.

What an odd coincidence!

mt

John Alway

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:

> Don Libby <dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in article
> <344D0D...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:

> > snip


> > > The subtle language employed by the satellite people

> > > does little to hide their actual views- they are just being polite.
> > > Anyone can see what they are truly implying- that
> > > Global Warming is not happening. Political pressure prevents
> > > them from speaking more strongly on the issue- they
> > > fear for their jobs should they speak the heresy aloud.
> > snip

> > > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
> >
> > Fear for their jobs, eh?

Certainly this is a factor. Some people find it hard
to find the courage to speak up against standard dogma,
much like it would have been difficult to speak up against
religion in the Dark Ages. These are _real_ phenomenon.


[...]

> You have proven my point with your reply. I response to my
> presenting the satellite data for global cooling you call me
> a "Nazi" and use personal attacks! Anyone who dares dispute
> the "established fact" of global warming is now subject to
> kind of persecution you have just demonstrated.

Dr. Robert Balling is a top notch atmospheric
scientist who pointed out that the satellite data is
statistically significant. He has a web site for
those who want to find him.


> The satellite data is clear and proven to be accurate-
> and it shows that the Earth is slowly COOLING.

> There are NO other reliable systems for measuring
> global temperature- none!

However, this is just over the last 18 years. I don't
think you can conclude this trend will continue
indefinitely. Trends up and down occur all of the time.

There are several excellent sites on the subject
of global warming (what warming?), but the one which
is very educational is the following:

http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/

He also gives the track record of the modelers
here:

http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

> Environmental politics is corrupting science on this issue.

> The best evidence shows that global warming is not happening.

Ayn Rand said it well when the movement was in its
infancy (paraphrasing) "they steal the prestige of science
to scare people". They haven't changed in two decades.

> For the proof of global cooling check out


> this site:
> http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
>
> Actual charts of the satellite temperature data
> can be found here:
> http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm


Or, another worth while source is the statement of
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who is very blunt and to the point
(a pleasant change). He points out how he was misrepresented
in the IPCC report. Dr. Lindzen is a rare breed. He has a high
degree of personal confidence and integrity, and won't let
lemings bulldoze him. Independent minded to the very end, and
so knowledgable and competent in the field that nobody can bulldoze
him.

(He was on the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour one time, and so
thoroughly refuted his opposite number on the subject of
GW that they don't dare have him back. His opponent stooped
to the level of going after Lindzen's credentials when all else
failed, and that failed miserably as well!)


His statement is here:
http://www.senate.gov/~epw/lind0710.htm




...John

Peter

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

In article <62lh7o$jmo$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no says...

>In science there is a rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>evidence. The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so
>extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
>that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence. Does such
>extraordinary evidence exist? No. In fact, even by "ordinary" scientific
>standards the evidence are scarce. Doing weather forecasts 100 years into
>the future is hazardous to put it mildly.

It seems to me as though the environmentalists, on the whole, are not cognizant
of the economic costs of the solutions they propose to environmental problems.
This does not mean the problems aren't serious, just that they are much more
difficult to solve--and expensive--than they appear at first glance to be. Where
I get upset with the "skeptics" is that they try to say that all the scientists
who support theories of say, global warming are liars and charlatans whose true
motive is to destroy free-enterprise. I do agree that, if we panic over global
warming, the result *could* be to destroy--or at least, seriously damage free
enterprise. What bothers me the most is the degree of paniciness on both sides
of this debate.

Dr. Efram E. Goldstein

unread,
Oct 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/23/97
to


John Alway <jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote in article
<344E9E...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...[...]


> There are several excellent sites on the subject
> of global warming (what warming?), but the one which
> is very educational is the following:
>
> http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/
>

[....]


Or, another worth while source is the statement of

> Dr. Richard Lindzen, who is very blunt and to the point[...]

> His statement is here:
> http://www.senate.gov/~epw/lind0710.htm
>
> ...John
>

Thanks for links- they are truly worthwhile.
It is clear that a growing number of scientists
are speaking against the unproved hysteria that
is known as "global warming".

Dr. Efram E Goldstein

Onar Aam

unread,
Oct 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/23/97
to

>Unfortunately he loses me in the first paragraph. His entire argument
>appears based on a surface infrared flux change of under 2 watts
>per CO2 doubling. This amounts to assuming the conclusion he wants.
>His only reference for this matter is not fully identified.
>
>He does acknowledge the widely accepted figure that the radiative
>imbalance at the tropopause under a CO2 doubling is 4 w/m^2, but
>he does not explain how this is balanced in the middle atmosphere,
>allowing for a smaller change at the surface.

Even though you use the 4 wm-2 figure you only get a warming of
0.75 K using Daly's method. That's quite close to the "mainstream"
skeptics such as Lindzen et al.


>His argument in section 1 is incompatible with his argument in section 2
>by elementary reasoning, left as an exercise for the reader. Section
>2 shares the unsubstantiated assumption of section1, however.

Not by much. The linearization in method 1 is a close approximation to
method 2.


>His argument in section 3 is invalid, as it fails to account for
>horizontal heat transfer.

Doesn't have to. The only assumption Daly makes in method 3 is that
the heat flux from the equator is approximately the same during the
northern summer as in the southern summer.

>Under the same logic, the temperature at the equator would in fact be
>much higher than is observed.

Doesn't matter as long as Daly only employs temperature *difference*.
One source of error, however, is that it requires more radiative
forcing to heat up the equator than in colder places.

> However,
>there is a heat transfer mechanism away from the equator, called
>"weather" which tends to smooth out temperature shifts due to local
>forcing. This does not apply to global forcing. Sections 4 and 5
>suffer from the same fallacy.

Yes, but if you'd actually check the correlation between radiation
and temperature you would see that it isn't all that far off. As
expected actual temperatures are lower at the equator and higher near
the poles than suggested by the radiation, but not by very much.


>None of these arguments constitute a coherent theory as to what happens
>to the extra energy. All of them conveniently ignore water vapor
>feedback, paleoclimate evidence and the historical record.

Actually, since the method is a statistical overall one all feedbacks are
taken into account. Basically he is comparing "before" and "after".
Whatever happened in between is irrelevant since it becomes sedimented in
the "after". However, that said, I think the methods he present generally
give too small numbers. If there is a 4 wm-2 forcing at the surface then
the Stefan-Boltzmann equation suggests that the warming will be roughly
0.75 K.


Onar.


Michael Tobis

unread,
Oct 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/23/97
to

John Alway (jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier) wrote:

: (He was on the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour one time, and so


: thoroughly refuted his opposite number on the subject of
: GW that they don't dare have him back. His opponent stooped
: to the level of going after Lindzen's credentials when all else
: failed, and that failed miserably as well!)

I saw that, and have commented on it here. In my opinion both Lindzen
and his opponent Michael Oppenheimer did execrably, for different
reasons. Oppenheimer's attacks on Lindzen's credentials were ludicrous,
but Lindzen's technical hair-splitting amounted to avoiding the issue
and failing to communicate with the audience.

The real fault, as usual, lay with the journalists who insisted on
framing the matter as a debate rather than as a discussion. No one
representing mainstream climatology was there.

I have the utmost respect for Richard Lindzen's accomplishments,
and I think he and his ideas should be treated with serious and
polite consideration, but he does not represent the mainstream of
scientific thinking on this issue any more than Oppenheimer does.

Framing the discussion as a debate is inexcuseable. Debates should
be about goals and principles. When facts are at issue the job of
journalism should be to reveal them, not to promote arguments about
them. In fact, it was this very program to which Alway refers that
made me understand the extent to which even the best journalism is
responsible for the polarization, and irresponsible propagation of
mutual contempt that replaces serious discussion. Only once the
public understands the issues should the debate begin, and at present
the understanding is very low thanks to the "debate" model that
imagines climatology to be a discipline riven by a fierce debate
between two imaginary camps.

This tragic circumstance is aided and abetted not only by people
like Mr Alway who are totally attached to one "side". The worst
part is that it is aided by those who are charged with objectivity,
even the most responsible journalists, who manufacture a noisy
and rancorous debate out of the fringes of a broad consensus.

mt


Phil Hays

unread,
Oct 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/23/97
to

Onar Aam <on...@hsr.no> wrote in article <62lh7o$jmo$1...@snipp.uninett.no>...

> Doing weather forecasts 100 years into the future is hazardous to put it
mildly.

I predict that the average temperature for January 2197 is going to be
colder than the average temperature for July 2198 in London, England. I
doubt if many would call that an extraordinary claim, yet it is a climate
prediction 100 years into the future, and I also think that I could buy
insurance against this prediction failing very cheaply. Hazardous
forecast? Almost a sure thing.

And do notice the important difference between weather and climate.

The court room metaphor misses on some of the important aspects of global
change. A far better metaphor is insurance. How much insurance (in the
form of limits to releases) should we buy against the threat of a warming?

--
Phil Hays


Michael Tobis

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

Onar Aam (on...@hsr.no) wrote:

: Even though you use the 4 wm-2 figure you only get a warming of

: 0.75 K using Daly's method. That's quite close to the "mainstream"
: skeptics such as Lindzen et al.

Lindzen's proposed mechanism, if he still holds to it, is more
complicated than assuming the feedbacks are zero as you are still
doing. Furthermore, even the simplest radiative convective models
show the imbalance increasing as you go downward.

: >His argument in section 1 is incompatible with his argument in section 2


: >by elementary reasoning, left as an exercise for the reader. Section
: >2 shares the unsubstantiated assumption of section1, however.

: Not by much. The linearization in method 1 is a close approximation to
: method 2.

Well, yes, but it's not a different line of evidence, just the same
calculation with one (of many) dubious simplifications removed.

: >His argument in section 3 is invalid, as it fails to account for
: >horizontal heat transfer.

: Doesn't have to. The only assumption Daly makes in method 3 is that

: the heat flux from the equator is approximately the same during the
: northern summer as in the southern summer.

But, alas, this assumption is faulty. See fig. 2.11 in Hartmann's
_Global Physical Climatology_, e.g., (Academic Press, 1994).

: Yes, but if you'd actually check the correlation between radiation


: and temperature you would see that it isn't all that far off. As
: expected actual temperatures are lower at the equator and higher near
: the poles than suggested by the radiation, but not by very much.

Oh please. The radiative equilibrium temperature at the polar night
is close enough to absolute zero to not be worth bothering about -
especially when the moon is in the dark phase! The same figure I cited
above shows the anual average energy import at the poles to exceed
80 watts per square meter, with the amount much larger in winter.

: >None of these arguments constitute a coherent theory as to what happens


: >to the extra energy. All of them conveniently ignore water vapor
: >feedback, paleoclimate evidence and the historical record.

: Actually, since the method is a statistical overall one all feedbacks are


: taken into account. Basically he is comparing "before" and "after".

OK, fair enough. His crude calculations in the first two points ignore
feedback. The last three merely ignore the existence of weather.

: Whatever happened in between is irrelevant since it becomes sedimented in


: the "after". However, that said, I think the methods he present generally
: give too small numbers. If there is a 4 wm-2 forcing at the surface then
: the Stefan-Boltzmann equation suggests that the warming will be roughly
: 0.75 K.

If there is a 4 w/m^2 total forcing at the surface, we agree. I presume we
also agree that a doubling amounts to a 4 w/m^2 forcing at the top. The
question is what that means at the bottom. Lindzen once proposed a mechanism,
not apparent in subsequent observations, that would reduce that forcing, but
Daly merely pulls a figure out of a hat (with an incomplete and unverifiable
citation), and calls that a theory.

mt


Paul D. Farrar

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

On 23 Oct 1997 05:11:59 GMT, on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) wrote:

>>Unfortunately he loses me in the first paragraph. His entire argument
>>appears based on a surface infrared flux change of under 2 watts
>>per CO2 doubling. This amounts to assuming the conclusion he wants.
>>His only reference for this matter is not fully identified.
>>
>>He does acknowledge the widely accepted figure that the radiative
>>imbalance at the tropopause under a CO2 doubling is 4 w/m^2, but
>>he does not explain how this is balanced in the middle atmosphere,
>>allowing for a smaller change at the surface.
>

>Even though you use the 4 wm-2 figure you only get a warming of
>0.75 K using Daly's method. That's quite close to the "mainstream"
>skeptics such as Lindzen et al.

But Daly's method is worthless. It's not just his numbers that are
wrong, it's also that he simply has no idea of what physical processes
are going on. One cannot simply grab some energy flux number from any
random level of the atmosphere and plug it into the Stefan-Boltzmann
relation to get the temperature change at the surface. That relation
is good only for black body radiation, such as the emission rate by
the skin of the earth's surface. Daly is also doing things backwards.
Where do those forcing numbers come from? They are not some intrinsic
property of CO2. They are determined by doing the radiation
calculations in a physically realistic way. Since the atmosphere is
emitting, absorbing, scattering, convecting, condensing etc., one must
integrate the equations for these processes through the atmosphere, in
a way that meets specified boundary conditions, usually at the top of
the atmosphere, and the calculation will give the changes in forcing
and temperature at various levels. We do not seem to be able to get
through to you how bad Daly's stuff really is, but to a meteorologist,
oceanographer, or maybe even just about any physical scientist, it is
truly awful. He gives his spiel about how bad models are, but his
method is a model too, just one with no connection to the observed
atmosphere. And everything he tries to do has already been done,
reasonably well, by someone who knew what he or she was doing.
One cannot understand or participate in critical discussion of this
material without some knowledge of the physical processes and what has
been observed in the atmosphere. A start would be Kiehl & Trenberth in
the Feb _Bull. of the Am. Met. Soc._ (This will be on their Web page
soon, if not already: www.ametsoc.org); Chapter 6 of Peixoto & Oort,
_Physics of Climate_; and whatever the corresponding section of
Hartmann, _Global Physical Climatology_, is. More advanced works are
by Goody, Goody&Yung, Liou, and Kondratyev.

[reminder cut]

Onar Aam

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

>Lindzen's proposed mechanism, if he still holds to it, is more
>complicated than assuming the feedbacks are zero as you are still
>doing. Furthermore, even the simplest radiative convective models
>show the imbalance increasing as you go downward.


I never disputed that. What I said is that we can assume _effective_
radiative balance, i.e. that the downward radiation surplus is
drained out of the system (most notably through the hydrological cycle).
The point is that we don't have to know where the extra radiation is
drained, but we DO know that it IS drained. If it weren't the
surface temperature would on average escalate wildly, something which is
not the case. Since radiation is the only major source of heat at the
surface and since the temperature is on a yearly average pretty constant
we can assume _effective_ radiative balance. It's cheap -- I know -- and
it's a gross oversimplification, but when you do this and check upward
LWIR radiation with corresponding temperatures you find that there is an
extraordinary correlation. The average temperature on earth is 15 C or
288 K. The average LWIR surface radiation is about 390 wm-2. Using
Stefan-Boltzmann this gives a a temperature of


T = (390/56.7e-9)^0.25 = 288 K = 15 C


Note that in this calculation horizontal heat transfer can be ignored
since this already has been accounted for in the average numbers.


>: Not by much. The linearization in method 1 is a close approximation to
>: method 2.
>
>Well, yes, but it's not a different line of evidence, just the same
>calculation with one (of many) dubious simplifications removed.


Well, sort of. I agree that it more or less is the same argument
rephrased, because implicit in the method is that there is a strong
correlation between radiation and temperature, as indeed -- remarkably
-- is the case. I do, however, think that it is a valid point to compare
"before" and "after" atmosphere, i.e. to demonstrate what the increased
radiative forcing atmosphere has contributed in the past. The reason that
method 1 and 2 gets such similar results is precisely due to what I showed
above, that there is such tremendous correspondance between average
longwave infrared radiation and average temperature.


>: Doesn't have to. The only assumption Daly makes in method 3 is that
>: the heat flux from the equator is approximately the same during the
>: northern summer as in the southern summer.
>
>But, alas, this assumption is faulty. See fig. 2.11 in Hartmann's
>_Global Physical Climatology_, e.g., (Academic Press, 1994).

By how much? In which direction? You are aware that a smaller actual
seasonal difference makes even Daly's numbers too high. If the
differences are more or less negligable (+/- 1 K) then this has no
great impact on Daly's calculation.


>: Yes, but if you'd actually check the correlation between radiation
>: and temperature you would see that it isn't all that far off. As
>: expected actual temperatures are lower at the equator and higher near
>: the poles than suggested by the radiation, but not by very much.
>
>Oh please. The radiative equilibrium temperature at the polar night
>is close enough to absolute zero to not be worth bothering about -
>especially when the moon is in the dark phase!

Ehm, as someone (who, btw, strongly disagreed with Daly) pointed out,
in the longwave infrared region the earth is virtually a black body.
Even snow is black in this region. (That's indeed why it's meaningful
to use the LWIR radiation and why Stefan-Boltzmann's equation isn't
too far off.) Therefore, unless, the temperature at the poles is 0 K
-- which it is not -- there *will* be a non-zero radiation there.

>The same figure I cited above shows the anual average energy import
>at the poles to exceed 80 watts per square meter, with the amount much
>larger in winter.

That's very interesting because this is approximately the amount of
energy that is "missing" in Daly's polar numbers. At Mawson Station
(68 degrees south) there is an average radiation of 168 wm-2 while there
is an average temperature of -11.5 C (261.5 K). The actual temperature
suggests that if there were radiative balance there _should_ be a
radiation of 265 wm-2. In other words 265-168 = 93 wm-2 is missing and
must have gotten there by other means. (read horizontal convection)
93 wm-2 is pretty close to 80 wm-2, don't you think? And when you then
take into account that there is much less upward convection at the poles
than elsewhere it's not a stretch of imagination to see that the
remaining energy comes from downward atmospheric radiation. The situation
at the equator is the opposite. In singapore (1 degree north) the mean
temperature is 28 C (301 K) and the LWIR radiation is 515 wm-2. The
temperature suggests that the radiation _should_ have been 465 wm-2. In
other words 515-465 = 50 wm-2 is transported out. Some of this probably
disappears with upwards convection whereas a large portion of it is
transported horizontally towards the poles. I would be very interested
to hear if the article you site also says something about the heat
transport from the equator. (This should naturally be less than 80 wm-2
since the equatorial belt has a lot larger area than the polar belt) I
would also be interested to hear if the article says something about at
which latitude there is a horizontal heat flux balance (i.e. where the
incoming heat from the equator equals the outgoing heat to the pole).
According to Daly's figures (and his hypothesis of a global
temperature/LWIRR correspondance) this should be at about 40-45 degrees
south, i.e. about halfway between the equator and the pole. At
Maatsuyker Island the mean temperature is 11.5 C and a LWIR radiation of
369 wm-2. The temperature suggests that there should be 371 wm-2 of
radiation here, i.e. an almost perfect match.


>: Actually, since the method is a statistical overall one all feedbacks are
>: taken into account. Basically he is comparing "before" and "after".
>
>OK, fair enough. His crude calculations in the first two points ignore
>feedback.

No, not in method 1. He looks at what the earth would be like before an
atmosphere with the current albedo. (-18 C) and compares it with the
after atmosphere scenario (15 C). Temperature and radiation are path
independent variables. This means that they can be measured independently
how the system ended up like that. Hence all feedbacks are taken into
account. The global temperature is a summary of all feedbacks. I agree
that assuming a correlation between LWIRR and temperature ignores feedback
and assumes effective radiative balance on average. That is, if you like,
Daly's hypothesis. And he does not back that hypothesis up with processes
to show that it is correct, but rather uses measurements and observational
data to show such correlation. And indeed, as I've shown above, there IS
a very strong statistical correlation.

>The last three merely ignore the existence of weather.

But _I_ haven't. When you take weather into account, Daly's calculations
change upwards, but not by much.


>If there is a 4 w/m^2 total forcing at the surface, we agree. I presume we
>also agree that a doubling amounts to a 4 w/m^2 forcing at the top.

I agree that 4 wm-2 is the number at the top, yes. As a worst case scenario
I also assume the number to be 4wm-2 at the surface, and I will stick to
this until I see evidence to the contrary.


>The question is what that means at the bottom.

Yup.

>Lindzen once proposed a mechanism,
>not apparent in subsequent observations, that would reduce that forcing, but
>Daly merely pulls a figure out of a hat (with an incomplete and unverifiable
>citation), and calls that a theory.

Well, forget about that figure then and use the 4 wm-2 figure instead.
Daly's numbers then become:


method 1: 0.88 K

method 2: 0.75 K

method 3: 0.38 K

method 4: 0.87 K when weather is accounted for

method 5: 0.45 K

method 6: 0.51 K


giving an average increase of 0.64 K for a 4 wm-2 forcing at the surface.
That's in the lower end of the "mainstream" skeptics.


Onar.

Onar Aam

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

>But Daly's method is worthless. It's not just his numbers that are
>wrong, it's also that he simply has no idea of what physical processes
>are going on.

I agree that Daly's method is primarily a statistical one, not one
based on actual physical models.


>One cannot simply grab some energy flux number from any
>random level of the atmosphere and plug it into the Stefan-Boltzmann
>relation to get the temperature change at the surface.

As far as I understand the data he is using is the LWIR radiation at
the surface, and you yourself have stated that the earth is approximately
black in that region.


>Daly is also doing things backwards. Where do those forcing numbers
>come from?

He sites others. Apparently he does not dispute the models' forcing,
but rather their tranlsation into temperature change.

>They are not some intrinsic property of CO2.

I can't see that he is claiming this anywhere, either.


>Since the atmosphere is
>emitting, absorbing, scattering, convecting, condensing etc., one must
>integrate the equations for these processes through the atmosphere, in
>a way that meets specified boundary conditions, usually at the top of
>the atmosphere, and the calculation will give the changes in forcing
>and temperature at various levels.

Agreed.

>We do not seem to be able to get
>through to you how bad Daly's stuff really is, but to a meteorologist,
>oceanographer, or maybe even just about any physical scientist, it is
>truly awful.

I can only speak for myself here and not attribute a model to Daly, but
the assumption he seems to be making is that the surface is _effectively_
in radiative balance. This means that any surplus downward atmospheric
radiation is assumed to be drained from the surface. (via upward
convection etc.) Whether you like it or not this assumption is sound. The
reasoning goes as following:

1) the only significant source of heat at the surface is radiation.

2) the surface mean temperature is approximately constant.

3) Hence the surface is in heat flux balance (i.e. just as much heat is
transported to the surface as is transported away from it.)

4) Hence there is effective radiative balance. (i.e. the surplus downward
radiation is drained out by other means than radiation)


This does NOT necessarily mean that there is a correlation between upward
radiation and temperature, but rather that there is a statistical
correlation. For some non-obvious reason this ratio appears to equal 1 on
a global mean. This is even true locally when we take horizontal heat flux
from the equator to the poles into account. The statistical correlation
is simply remarkable. I can only speak for myself, but I am not claiming
anything other than a statistical correlation. Any prediction made on this
would be an extrapolation of a significant statistical correlation.


>He gives his spiel about how bad models are, but his
>method is a model too, just one with no connection to the observed
>atmosphere.

He seems to be basing his argument on the surface LWIR radiation data.
He is not making statements about the atmosphere as such, only about
the surface temperatures. I can't see any wrong in using this data then,
especially when I've showed that there is a strong statistical correlation,
even at a particular latitude.


Basically the hypothesis can be summarized as the following: the surplus
downward radiation is on average cancelled out by various energy drains.
I don't account for those drains, I leave that to be shown by others. What
I use to support that notion is that there is a very strong statistical
relation between LWIR radiation and temperature (when equator-pole heat
flux is taken into account). Sure, you can criticize me for not physically
accounting for those drains, but that does not explain away the
extraordinary statistical correspondance.


Onar.


David Gossman

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

Peter wrote:
>
>
> It seems to me as though the environmentalists, on the whole, are not cognizant
> of the economic costs of the solutions they propose to environmental problems.
> This does not mean the problems aren't serious, just that they are much more
> difficult to solve--and expensive--than they appear at first glance to be. Where
> I get upset with the "skeptics" is that they try to say that all the scientists
> who support theories of say, global warming are liars and charlatans whose true
> motive is to destroy free-enterprise. I do agree that, if we panic over global
> warming, the result *could* be to destroy--or at least, seriously damage free
> enterprise. What bothers me the most is the degree of paniciness on both sides
> of this debate.

Given the single minded approach to solving the "problem" by limiting
CO2 emissions without any attempt to look at alternatives, perhaps you
should reconsider that the impact on free-enterprise may be the real
objective of at least some of those involved, particularly those with a
history of pushing socialist agendas in the political realm. How many of
the scientists involved in identifying the phenomena of global warming,
wether or not it is a man made phenomena and wether or not the impact is
as large as some models say, are looking at potential solutions other
than the extremely costly approach of limiting CO2? Those scientists are
either conciously or blindly supporting the political agenda with which
you express concern. Doesn't that deserve critisism? I would agree with
your concern about the "skeptics" as I doubt that the majority of them
have looked at alternative solutions as well.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein

Scott Nudds

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to

"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:

: More personal attacks! This is the fate of anyone who dares point
: out that global satellite data proves that global warming is
: not happening.

They don't prove, let alone indicate anything unless you can extract
surface temperatures from the average through the air column.


"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:

: The satellite data is clear, unambiguous, and now proven
: to be correct.

Sorry, it's anything but clear.


--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to

(Onar Aam) wrote:
: In science there is a rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
: evidence.

There is absolutely nothing extraordinary to the claim that blocking
the radiation into space of surface heat from the earth will cause the
surface of the earth to warm. It's no different than claiming that
blankets keep people warm at night.

The prevalence of blankets, coats, gloves, hats, ear muffs, etc, in
this world are ample proof of this effect.

But apparently not ample enough for denialists.

(Onar Aam) wrote:
: The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so


: extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
: that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence.

This is interesting. Usually the denialist camp insists that since
the planet has seen these very changes before that they are nothing to
worry about. - as if an ice age is nothing to worry about.

Now we have a denialist claiming that the changes are so extraordinary
that they can not be believed.

Clearly denialists will say anything to protect their faith.


--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to

John McCarthy wrote:
: Tom Moore is probably right that the main effects of global warming
: will be benign.

Here McCarthy attempts to moderate Moore's proposals. Presumably he
believes that accepting a small deception will make accepting a larger
one easier.

---
I am Founder and President of Atheists for the School Prayer
Amendment, which has got six members in the last ten years. - John
McCarthy - Sept 97

--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to

"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:
: The evidence is plain in my view- the satellite data has now been proven
: conclusively to be accurate.

An accurate measure of what weighted average through the air column?


"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:

: The satellite sensors are so sensitive that they detect atmospheric
: warming caused by a full moon.

A precise average. How do you extract the surface temperature from
the average? What precisely is being measured?

It certainly isn't surface temperature is it?

--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to

(Peter) wrote:
: I get upset with the "skeptics" is that they try to say that all the
: scientists who support theories of say, global warming are liars and
: charlatans whose true motive is to destroy free-enterprise. I do agree

: that, if we panic over global warming, the result *could* be to
: destroy--or at least, seriously damage free enterprise. What bothers
: me the most is the degree of paniciness on both sides of this debate.

Global Warming denialists are simply doomsters who panic when they
finally see limits to fossil fuel consumption.

For the most part, environmentalists support a rational approach to
the global warming problem. The immediate adoption of a "no regrets"
emission control policy that reduces emissions through the advancement
of technical changes in consumption and efficiency improvements that
will inevitable be brought on line anyhow - but decades hence.

Improvements in efficiency of consumption are a kind of progress that
some irrational minds fear.

--
<---->


Onar Aam

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to

> There is absolutely nothing extraordinary to the claim that blocking
>the radiation into space of surface heat from the earth will cause the
>surface of the earth to warm.

That's true. It IS however extraordinary to claim that slight increases of
a trace gas will warm the earth in the order of several degrees AND that
this warming is harmful.

> But apparently not ample enough for denialists.


Hey, you seem to be spreading the word "denialist" around quite
uncritically.


>: The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so
>: extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
>: that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence.
>
> This is interesting. Usually the denialist camp insists that since
>the planet has seen these very changes before that they are nothing to
>worry about.

What do you mean "denialist camp"? Are you incapable of addressing me
outside your narrow prototype of people who disagree with you? I happen
to be developing environmental technology, and are therefore one of the
people who would benefit most from an ambitious treaty at Kyoto. Despite
this opportunity to personal gain I oppose it. Why? Not because I am a
"right-wing denialist" or because I am supported by industry, but because
I cannot consciensciously support the waste of tax-payer's money. Reducing
CO2 emissions to 15% below 1990 level will have NO impact on global climate,
regardless of what climate sensitivity you use.


> Now we have a denialist claiming that the changes are so extraordinary
>that they can not be believed.

No, I am saying that the claims are so extraordinary that they require
extraordinary evidence. All scientists agree that we can easily wait 20-30
years before we start more progressive emission reductions. In 20-30 years
we will know a lot more about climate change. Why, oh, why then not wait
until we have the amount of evidence that would justify such actions?


Onar.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Oct 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/28/97
to

David Gossman wrote:
: Given the single minded approach to solving the "problem" by limiting

: CO2 emissions without any attempt to look at alternatives, perhaps you
: should reconsider that the impact on free-enterprise may be the real
: objective of at least some of those involved, particularly those with a
: history of pushing socialist agendas in the political realm. How many of
: the scientists involved in identifying the phenomena of global warming,
: wether or not it is a man made phenomena and wether or not the impact is
: as large as some models say, are looking at potential solutions other
: than the extremely costly approach of limiting CO2?

Alternatives to reductions in CO2 emissions have been considered.
There are <no> practical alternatives.

Gossman and others doesn't want to believe this, such is their fear of
change. He would rather treat the symptom rather than the disease.

--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Oct 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/28/97
to

John Alway wrote:
: Dr. Robert Balling is a top notch atmospheric

: scientist who pointed out that the satellite data is
: statistically significant.

Alway thinks that satellite data is "statistically significant". What
he does not know is what was measured by this "stistically significant"
data.

John Alway wrote:
: Dr. Lindzen is a rare breed. He has a high


: degree of personal confidence and integrity, and won't let
: lemings bulldoze him. Independent minded to the very end, and
: so knowledgable and competent in the field that nobody can bulldoze
: him.

And even Lindzen admits that there will be further warming as CO2
levels rise.

Isn't it strange how denialists like Alway ignore such facts.

---
"Is there any common ground? Of all people, Michaels insists there could
be. "When it comes to it, the modellers and the sceptics are not so far
apart," he says. Indeed, if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and
other sceptics suggest a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise
average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 'C. And 1.5 'C is the bottom
end of the modellers' range of predictions." - NEW SCIENTIST: 19 July
1997

--
<---->


David Gossman

unread,
Oct 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/28/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Given the single minded approach to solving the "problem" by limiting
> : CO2 emissions without any attempt to look at alternatives, perhaps you
> : should reconsider that the impact on free-enterprise may be the real
> : objective of at least some of those involved, particularly those with a
> : history of pushing socialist agendas in the political realm. How many of
> : the scientists involved in identifying the phenomena of global warming,
> : wether or not it is a man made phenomena and wether or not the impact is
> : as large as some models say, are looking at potential solutions other
> : than the extremely costly approach of limiting CO2?
>
> Alternatives to reductions in CO2 emissions have been considered.
> There are <no> practical alternatives.

Please do provide the appropriate references and a brief explanation as
to why such alternatives cannot work. PS How many trees did you plant
last year?:)


>
> Gossman and others doesn't want to believe this, such is their fear of
> change. He would rather treat the symptom rather than the disease.
>

Mr Nudds - to suggest that it is I who fear change is perhaps amoung the
silliest things you have ever said. It is in fact you who fear change.
It is you who would like any excuse, including "global warming" to drag
the human race back to the barbarism of socialist and totalitarian
policies in order to prevent anything from changing - including advances
in technology that continue to provide the human race with greater and
greater control of our environment and of ourselves.

David Gossman

unread,
Oct 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/28/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Whichever way it goes it seems to me that limiting CO2 emissions is the
> : most costly solution that anyone could come up with.
>
> Why is that? This 9 watt high E light above me is saving me money as
> it saves energy. It seems silly for you to insist that I must burn
> another 41 watts of coal or oil to generate light that I already have.

It still places more CO2 into the atmosphere than you personally remove.
I don't spend money I don't need to either. On the other hand you want
to lower the standard of living to accomplish a goal that is unknown and
untested. I simply suggested that 1 billion dollars/year is a lot less
than 100 billion dollars/year a point that you conveniently clipped and
ignored. Or do you dispute my math.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : If it were to turn
> : out to be a problem, man made or otherwize, it seems that some fine
> : particulate dispersed into the upper atmosphere would me a much more
> : cost effective solution.
>
> How typical - treat the symptom not the disease.

How about wait to verify the magnitude and treatment till after the
disease is confirmed instead of treating everyone with an antitdote that
could be more deadly than the disease. You have based your conclusion
that a disease exists on models that can't even accurately predict the
past! How can you possibly expect them to reliably predict the future? I
do not claim that the phenomena does not exist, just that it has not
been studied enough to determine the real magnitude and all of the
factors of cause and effect.
>
> How long are you going to throw smoke into the air? You do realize
> don't you that once you start, you can't stop blowing smoke. To do so
> means an extremely rapid rise in temperature - far faster than we will
> see in the next 100 years.

What smoke? Fine particulate dispersed into the upper atmosphere can be
carefully controlled on a year to year basis to reflect the optimal
amount of sunlight wether or not any warming is due to CO2 or a small
increase in solar flux which has also been suggested. If on the other
hand we are at a cusp and can anticipate a decrease in solar flux the
additional CO2 will be a clear benefit in stabilizing temperatures at
what is geologically an unusually high level. Of course we could all go
your route and return to living in caves and simultaneously kill of the
majority of humans -why don't you admit that that is what you would
prefer.
>
> You are simply adding another burden to your children and their
> children and so on, for the next thousand years.

Me thinks the "burden" comes from the socialist policies of the likes of
you!
>
> Bad decision.
>

Disagreement from you is a virtual confirmation in my mind that I may be
onto something.:)

Michael Tobis

unread,
Oct 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/30/97
to

David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
: Michael Tobis wrote:
: >
: > David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
: >
: > None. These are different fields. Various mitigation efforts are
: > being considered by other scientists, both in the public and the private
: > sector. Deliberate aerosol releases are an exception, but this confuses
: > the symptom (global warming) with the disease (rapid climate change)
: > so the reason it isn't seriously being considered is because it isn't
: > a serious response. Sensible mitigation responses involve methods
: > for removing greenhouse gases after they have been emitted or in the
: > emission process. I believe that a wide variety of such approaches
: > are under consideration.

: First you define "sensible" very narrowly and then you try to claim that
: a variety of paaroaches are being studied. I suggest one alternative
: that has a projected annual cost of < 1 billion dollars/year as a
: comparison with the current press reports of 100 billion dollars/year
: for the adminstration proposal and all you can do is say that it isn't a
: serious response - why not?!

Because they address the symptom (global warming) and not the disease
(rapid climate change), exactly as I said. More specifically, while
aerosol releases could cancel out the change in global mean temperature,
their impact is not the exact opposite of greenhouse gases - the
temperature structure and hence the patterns of climate would continue
to be subject to accelerating disruption. What's more, this would
amount to a commitment to a mitigation strategy for centuries after
the disruption. So the annual cost isn't an especially good measure.
These releases would have to occur for many generations after the
carbon got used up.

I don't know where you got either of your numbers.

mt


David Gossman

unread,
Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97
to

Michael Tobis wrote:
>
> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
>
> : First you define "sensible" very narrowly and then you try to claim that
> : a variety of aproaches are being studied. I suggest one alternative

> : that has a projected annual cost of < 1 billion dollars/year as a
> : comparison with the current press reports of 100 billion dollars/year
> : for the adminstration proposal and all you can do is say that it isn't a
> : serious response - why not?!
>
> Because they address the symptom (global warming) and not the disease
> (rapid climate change), exactly as I said. More specifically, while
> aerosol releases could cancel out the change in global mean temperature,
> their impact is not the exact opposite of greenhouse gases - the
> temperature structure and hence the patterns of climate would continue
> to be subject to accelerating disruption. What's more, this would
> amount to a commitment to a mitigation strategy for centuries after
> the disruption. So the annual cost isn't an especially good measure.
> These releases would have to occur for many generations after the
> carbon got used up.
>
If the carbon was used up and there were no continuing releases of CO2
to the environment won't CO2 drop? I don't know how rapid but if the
proposed solution is to stabalize emission at 1990 levels or some
percentage thereof then there must be some sink capacity in the system
that would reduce CO2 fairly quickly once the carbon was gone. Meanwhile
given coal reserve of 500 years that seems rather a long ways off - not
that fusion or some other technology (space based power systems?) aren't
likely to supplant fossil fuels at some point anyway.

Meanwhile, just so we are on the same wavelength could you provide your
definition of "global warming" and "rapid climate change" so that I can
better understand your first statement. If the symptom goes away is
there a disease?:) I don't buy your disruption arguement - for all I
know this type of solution could actually have a calming affect on
serious weather events. Do you have any data that would suggest the
opposite?

> I don't know where you got either of your numbers.
>

Both figures are annual costs taken from the popular press. I don't make
any claim regarding the accuracy of either but given the difference only
suggest that alternatives need to be seriously considered - something I
don't see happening in the political or scientific arena.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/7/97
to

David Gossman wrote:
: If the carbon was used up and there were no continuing releases of CO2

: to the environment won't CO2 drop? I don't know how rapid but if the
: proposed solution is to stabalize emission at 1990 levels or some
: percentage thereof then there must be some sink capacity in the system
: that would reduce CO2 fairly quickly once the carbon was gone.

Reductions to 1990 emission levels will prevent not further increases
in atmospheric CO2 levels, they will simply stabalize the rate of
increase - from the currently industrialized nations who are currently
the source of most CO2.

In 1990, global carbon emissions were approximately what they are
today, and needed to be reduced from about 6 gigatonn/year to about 1
gigatonn/year on order to prevent further CO2 increases. As a rough
approximation, one can assume that carbon emissions are increasing by
roughly 2%-3% per year.

Stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels are not significant in that
they will reduce emissions. It is significant because it will stop the
acceleration in the rate of emissions.

--
<---->


Michael Tobis

unread,
Nov 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/11/97
to

David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: >
: > In 1990, global carbon emissions were approximately what they are

: > today, and needed to be reduced from about 6 gigatonn/year to about 1
: > gigatonn/year on order to prevent further CO2 increases. As a rough
: > approximation, one can assume that carbon emissions are increasing by
: > roughly 2%-3% per year.
: >
: > Stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels are not significant in that
: > they will reduce emissions. It is significant because it will stop the
: > acceleration in the rate of emissions.
: >
: Assuming all this is true and assuming the models prove themselves out
: what is being proposed will not prevent global warming - just slow it
: down a very small amount. Seems to me that the "engineering" solution
: may be needed anyway and the attempt to "stabalize the rate of increase"
: will be a costly affair without benefit. So again what is the benefit?

It is incorrect that what is being proposed will only slow down
global warming. It will also hasten the day when the anthropogenic
forcing (if you prefer, the "warming") ceases.

If you imagine yourself far in the future, when somehow the level will
have been stabilized, there will have been an average annual emission
rate over the intervening period. To first order, the final concentration
depends on that average and the exact trajectory amounts to little more
than a fine tuning. The factor of 6 alluded to above refers to the cuts
necessary to limit the concentration to the contemporary value. Limiting
emissions to 1990 levels, as agreed to by the world community in 1992,
limits the final concentrations to roughly double the background, that
is, probably limits the final temperature change to 1.5 to 4.5 C
globally averaged.

So the focus on clamping emissions particularly comes from this fact
as well as a plausible belief that the risk of serious consequences
increases with the final concentration. There is also the possibility
that the risk of serious consequences increases with the rate of change
as well as the total final change.

If the goal is to limit final concentrations to some value above which
the risk is deemed unacceptable then the startegy must be to reduce mean
annual emissions to a value corresponding to that level. Since it is
difficult to establish such a level, it makes sense just to take some
particular year and stop increasing total emissions beyond that date.
As it happens, the year 1990 was already agreed to by almost every country
in the world.

As for engineering solutions, they are fine, as long as they limit
net emissions. Nuclear power, solar, hydro and wind power, biomass, source
remediation, and sequestration through large scale biological methods
are all plausible. It is ignoring the problem that makes the stakes
high. Dealing with it is not trivial, but isn't insurmountable either.

People who think that civilization will crumble the minute the coal
runs out seem to me to lack imagination. It is proposed to act as
if the coal is running out earlier than anticipated. How this gets
interpreted as a cynical conspiracy to destroy contemporary civilization
escapes me.

mt


David Gossman

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

Michael Tobis wrote:
>
> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
> : >
> : Assuming all this is true and assuming the models prove themselves out
> : what is being proposed will not prevent global warming - just slow it
> : down a very small amount. Seems to me that the "engineering" solution
> : may be needed anyway and the attempt to "stabalize the rate of increase"
> : will be a costly affair without benefit. So again what is the benefit?
>
> It is incorrect that what is being proposed will only slow down
> global warming. It will also hasten the day when the anthropogenic
> forcing (if you prefer, the "warming") ceases.

It will hasten that day only if draconian measures and a radical change
in our political structure were to also occur. I think you may be
thinking too logically and linearly without taking into account the
political realities.


>
> If you imagine yourself far in the future, when somehow the level will
> have been stabilized, there will have been an average annual emission
> rate over the intervening period. To first order, the final concentration
> depends on that average and the exact trajectory amounts to little more
> than a fine tuning. The factor of 6 alluded to above refers to the cuts
> necessary to limit the concentration to the contemporary value. Limiting
> emissions to 1990 levels, as agreed to by the world community in 1992,
> limits the final concentrations to roughly double the background, that
> is, probably limits the final temperature change to 1.5 to 4.5 C
> globally averaged.

"Somehow" suggests you don't know how. Why not an engineering solution
that is not "far in the future" and doesn't require CO2 reductions until
we can technologically provide alternative sources of energy.


>
> So the focus on clamping emissions particularly comes from this fact
> as well as a plausible belief that the risk of serious consequences
> increases with the final concentration. There is also the possibility
> that the risk of serious consequences increases with the rate of change
> as well as the total final change.
>
> If the goal is to limit final concentrations to some value above which
> the risk is deemed unacceptable then the startegy must be to reduce mean
> annual emissions to a value corresponding to that level. Since it is
> difficult to establish such a level, it makes sense just to take some
> particular year and stop increasing total emissions beyond that date.
> As it happens, the year 1990 was already agreed to by almost every country
> in the world.
>
> As for engineering solutions, they are fine, as long as they limit
> net emissions. Nuclear power, solar, hydro and wind power, biomass, source
> remediation, and sequestration through large scale biological methods
> are all plausible. It is ignoring the problem that makes the stakes
> high. Dealing with it is not trivial, but isn't insurmountable either.

While I have no problem with what you have suggested as engineering
solutions for CO2 reductions I was referring to solutions that modify
the situation so as to prevent any increase in temperature without
running the world through the hardship of unnecessarily reducing CO2
emissions. The example I have seen mentioned most often involves
dispersing fine particulates in the upper atmosphere. This would seem to
be a much more cost effective way of reducing global mean temperatures
than reducing CO2 emissions. It also has the added benefit of producing
fairly quick reactions and can therefore be adjusted almost year to year
only as needed. It does not require the enormous investment and
associated human suffering inherent in the draconian measures that would
be necessary to reduce CO2 to a small percentage of current emission
rates. I would also note that while you have indicated support of the
use of nuclear as an option, many also oppose this option, preferring to
take measures that would significantly reduce the standard of living and
quality of life for billions of people.


>
> People who think that civilization will crumble the minute the coal
> runs out seem to me to lack imagination. It is proposed to act as
> if the coal is running out earlier than anticipated. How this gets
> interpreted as a cynical conspiracy to destroy contemporary civilization
> escapes me.

As long as those same people oppose nuclear power I can see no result
but the ultimate destuction fo civilization as we know it. Some will
even admit to this goal. Consider transportaion alone and propose an
option that would reduce CO2 emission by a factor of six without nuclear
power. Ultimately space based power systems could replace coal but I
suspect our technology is at least 100 years from that point.
>
> mt

Eric Swanson

unread,
Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97
to

In article <346A02...@gcisolutions.com>, dgos...@gcisolutions.com
says...

>
>Michael Tobis wrote:
>>
>> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
>> : >
>> : Assuming all this is true and assuming the models prove themselves out
>> : what is being proposed will not prevent global warming - just slow it
>> : down a very small amount. Seems to me that the "engineering" solution
>> : may be needed anyway and the attempt to "stabalize the rate of
>> : increase" will be a costly affair without benefit.
[cut]

>> If you imagine yourself far in the future, when somehow the level will
>> have been stabilized, there will have been an average annual emission
>> rate over the intervening period. To first order, the final concentration
>> depends on that average and the exact trajectory amounts to little more
>> than a fine tuning. The factor of 6 alluded to above refers to the cuts
>> necessary to limit the concentration to the contemporary value. Limiting
>> emissions to 1990 levels, as agreed to by the world community in 1992,
>> limits the final concentrations to roughly double the background, that
>> is, probably limits the final temperature change to 1.5 to 4.5 C
>> globally averaged.
>
>"Somehow" suggests you don't know how. Why not an engineering solution
>that is not "far in the future" and doesn't require CO2 reductions until
>we can technologically provide alternative sources of energy.
[cut]

Don't you think it is a little presumptous to propose mitigation
techniques when we don't understand the climate system well enough to
predict the full effects of such actions? (see below)

>>
>> As for engineering solutions, they are fine, as long as they limit
>> net emissions. Nuclear power, solar, hydro and wind power, biomass,
>> source remediation, and sequestration through large scale biological
>> methods are all plausible. It is ignoring the problem that makes the
>> stakes high. Dealing with it is not trivial, but isn't insurmountable
>> either.
>
>While I have no problem with what you have suggested as engineering
>solutions for CO2 reductions I was referring to solutions that modify
>the situation so as to prevent any increase in temperature without
>running the world through the hardship of unnecessarily reducing CO2
>emissions. The example I have seen mentioned most often involves
>dispersing fine particulates in the upper atmosphere. This would seem to
>be a much more cost effective way of reducing global mean temperatures
>than reducing CO2 emissions. It also has the added benefit of producing
>fairly quick reactions and can therefore be adjusted almost year to year
>only as needed. It does not require the enormous investment and
>associated human suffering inherent in the draconian measures that would
>be necessary to reduce CO2 to a small percentage of current emission
>rates.

[cut]

Your proposal to disperse fine particulates should be compared with
recent volcanic events, to obtain some idea of the scale of such an
action. In NATURE, 389, p591, the authors indicated that the eruption
of Mt. Pinatubo moved an estimated 17 million tons of sulfur into the
stratosphere. The cooling (about .5 deg C?) which has been associated
with this event lasted only a few years. This avenue of mitigation
might require about 34 million tons of sulfur every 2 years, to offset
a 1.0 deg temperature rise.

However, one GCM experiment concluded that the SO2 aerosol from Pinatubo
may have produced a complex result, with net warming at low latitudes,
offset by an even greater cooling at higher latitudes.

See: Tselioudis, G., A. A. Lacis, D. Rind & W. B. Rossow, "Potential
effects of cloud optical thickness on climate warming", Nature 366, (1993).

--
Eric Swanson For e-mail, remove "XS" from end of address
--------------------------------------------------------------


David Gossman

unread,
Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97
to

Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> In article <346A02...@gcisolutions.com>, dgos...@gcisolutions.com
> says...
>
> Don't you think it is a little presumptous to propose mitigation
> techniques when we don't understand the climate system well enough to
> predict the full effects of such actions? (see below)
>
All I have said, rather repetitively, is that options other than
devastating the world economy via draconian CO2 reduction measures which
would undouptedly require a rather totalitarian form of government
should be researched. Is my suggestion any more presumptious than
requiring such measures based on modeling that can't even predict the
past?!

I made one suggestion that has been presented elsewhere by qualified
scientists to illustrate that alternatives may exist. What do you have
against researching such alternatives before we go down the path of
attempting the drastic CO2 reducion required via that route. I can think
of other options such as large sloar mirrors to reduce solar ratiation
levels. Any of these including the particulate dispersion option (It
doesn't have to be sulphates!) would cost far less thatn the CO2
reduction proposals currently discussed. Why are you and others that
advocate CO2 reduction so set in your thinking that you can't even
consider alternatives?

John McCarthy

unread,
Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97
to

The news stories tell us that the Japanese think they can meet the
proposed targets for reducing CO2 emissions. It was announced today
that they plan to do it by building 20 more gigawatts of nuclear power
by 2010.

I suppose that may meet the present modest targets provided the
somewhat more dubious automotive economies can be realized. However,
should global warming turn out to be a severe problem, the present
targets will be entirely inadequate.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


char...@hal-pc.org

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

In article <346BC7...@gcisolutions.com>,
David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>Eric Swanson wrote:

(cut of a bunch of stuff about CO2 emissions and global
warming)

>> --
>> Eric Swanson For e-mail, remove "XS" from end of
address
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>I made one suggestion that has been presented elsewhere by
qualified
>scientists to illustrate that alternatives may exist. What
do you have
>against researching such alternatives before we go down the
path of
>attempting the drastic CO2 reducion required via that route.
I can think
>of other options such as large sloar mirrors to reduce solar
ratiation
>levels. Any of these including the particulate dispersion
option (It
>doesn't have to be sulphates!) would cost far less thatn the
CO2
>reduction proposals currently discussed. Why are you and
others that
>advocate CO2 reduction so set in your thinking that you
can't even
>consider alternatives?

Think, man. Think! Obviously, there is a hidden agenda
here. These closed minded "enviros" wouldn't have a good
excuse to establish a one-world totalitarian government if
alternatives were enacted.

Peter

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

In article <64gm5e$plg$2...@news.hal-pc.org>, char...@hal-pc.org says...

>Think, man. Think! Obviously, there is a hidden agenda
>here. These closed minded "enviros" wouldn't have a good
>excuse to establish a one-world totalitarian government if
>alternatives were enacted.

I suppose, Charlie, you'd like to add that it's the environmentalist who are
paranoid!

Michael Tobis

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:

: Eric Swanson wrote:
: >
: > In article <346A02...@gcisolutions.com>, dgos...@gcisolutions.com
: > says...
: >
: > Don't you think it is a little presumptous to propose mitigation
: > techniques when we don't understand the climate system well enough to
: > predict the full effects of such actions? (see below)
: >
: All I have said, rather repetitively, is that options other than
: devastating the world economy via draconian CO2 reduction measures which
: would undouptedly require a rather totalitarian form of government

You have never supported the excessive assertions about totalitarian
government. Are you one of those who confuses taxes with totalitarianism?

: should be researched. Is my suggestion any more presumptious than


: requiring such measures based on modeling that can't even predict the
: past?!

All science is modeling. The inability to model the past is not necessarily
based on bad models - it could be based on lack of information. We have
very little information about the state of the deep ocean even today.
However, as it turns out, this failure to model the past century is no
longer true - the inclusion of aerosol forcing accounts for the global
temperature trajectory quite nicely. Apparently there were large releases
of aerosol in the 1950's from a surge in smelting activity.

: > >While I have no problem with what you have suggested as engineering


: > >solutions for CO2 reductions I was referring to solutions that modify
: > >the situation so as to prevent any increase in temperature without
: > >running the world through the hardship of unnecessarily reducing CO2
: > >emissions. The example I have seen mentioned most often involves
: > >dispersing fine particulates in the upper atmosphere. This would seem to
: > >be a much more cost effective way of reducing global mean temperatures
: > >than reducing CO2 emissions.

You have never justified this in terms of cost.

You have consistently ignored the fact that this only stops the symptom
(global mean temperature shifts) and not the actual problem (accelerating
anthropogenic climate change). It can, however, deal with the sea level
problem.

: > > It also has the added benefit of producing


: > >fairly quick reactions and can therefore be adjusted almost year to year
: > >only as needed.

There's a generational justice issue here, though. This will remain
necessary long after the fossil fuels actually run out.

: > > It does not require the enormous investment and


: > >associated human suffering inherent in the draconian measures that would
: > >be necessary to reduce CO2 to a small percentage of current emission
: > >rates.

Current proposals only discuss limiting CO2 emissions or cutting them slightly.
Your constant refrain of "draconian" proves nothing. Justify it.

: I made one suggestion that has been presented elsewhere by qualified


: scientists to illustrate that alternatives may exist. What do you have
: against researching such alternatives before we go down the path of
: attempting the drastic CO2 reducion required via that route. I can think
: of other options such as large sloar mirrors to reduce solar ratiation
: levels. Any of these including the particulate dispersion option (It
: doesn't have to be sulphates!) would cost far less thatn the CO2
: reduction proposals currently discussed.

Maybe. Why are you so sure? Let's see some numbers.

: Why are you and others that


: advocate CO2 reduction so set in your thinking that you can't even
: consider alternatives?

I speak for myself, not others. I see obvious problems with your approach
that you are failing to address. You make claims for "draconian" costs
for CO2 emission reduction and "much smaller" costs for your aerosol
releases, but you don't bother presenting any evidence for either.

I think it's likely that deliberate aerosol releases will occur once the
extent of the problem becomes clear, but by then it will also be clear that
this provides no license for unlimited growth in emissions. If this occurs,
it will probably be accompanied by great regret and possibly anger that
restraining measures were not adopted once the seriousness of the problem
became clear.

mt


Elaterium

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to

<<Think, man. Think! Obviously, there is a hidden agenda
here. These closed minded "enviros" wouldn't have a good
excuse to establish a one-world totalitarian government if
alternatives were enacted.>>

That's right! Us 'environmentalists' don't really give a shit about the health
of our planet. We just want to take over and create a police state!!


elat...@aol.com

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to

David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:

: Michael Tobis wrote:
: >
: > David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
: > : All I have said, rather repetitively, is that options other than
: > : devastating the world economy via draconian CO2 reduction measures which
: > : would undouptedly require a rather totalitarian form of government
: >
: > You have never supported the excessive assertions about totalitarian
: > government. Are you one of those who confuses taxes with totalitarianism?

: Taxes without representation is totalitarianism! Remember that little
: party held in Boston a few years ago.:)

Fine. I live in Washington DC and pay federal taxes. Should I go
down and torch the Capitol (It's closer to me than the White House

josh halpern


Phil Hays

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to

David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote in article
<346F9A...@gcisolutions.com>...

> Seriously, to produce the cubacks of the levels that are really
> required how can you possibly believe that democraticly
> elected officials could survive the levels of taxes that would
> be required.

Suppose we decided to end the income tax and replace the funding that the
income tax raises with a carbon tax. Please notice that there is no net
economic impact from this change in taxes.

Over time, people would avoid this tax by buying higher milage cars, by
improving the energy efficiency of their houses and businesses and by
switching to non-fossil based energy, like biomass, nuclear and solar. To
keep the funding constant, the rate of the tax would have to increase with
time. This would increase the tax avoidance, just what we want. How far
would this process go? Depends on all sorts of unkown factors... However I
would be rather suprised if it didn't at least halve CO2 releases.

> I can see local farmers running alcohol stills to run their farm
> equipment being arrested for not paying the carbon tax.

I can't. Biomass fuels should not be taxed.

> So could that lack of information also cause the models to fail to
> produce accurate predictions of the future? Of course they could. A
> small decrease in the solar constant or a variety of other factors could
> result in the models being way off in either direction. That would seem
> to me to be a very good reason to look at engineered solutions rather
> thatn the simplistic and incredibly costly approach of reducing CO2
> emissions to one-sixth of current levels.

For now, engineered solutions have a feedback problem. As we don't know
exactly what CO2 releases and other forcings will do to the climate, how
could we know exactly how much sulpher to haul into the stratosphere? Just
a WAG guess? And the pattern of cooling from junk in the stratosphere
would not match the pattern of warming from additional CO2. If we exactly
matched global totals the poles would warm and the tropics would cool. How
would this change global weather patterns? Or ocean currents? None?
Don't bet the farm.

A far better planet to try out the engineering of climate is Mars.


> Estimates in the popular press suggest that the cost in the US alone of
> holding CO2 emissions to 1990 levels at 100 billion/year - not
> worldwide, not one-sixth current levels.

The net cost of a carbon tax (replacing the income tax) is near zero.
Might even be negative.


--
Phil Hays
"Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what we can do, even in
principal." Carl Sagan


Joshua Halpern

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
: Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > Fine. I live in Washington DC and pay federal taxes. Should I go

: > down and torch the Capitol (It's closer to me than the White House

: Seems to me that torching the capitol might be a little extreme but I
: agree that you should have representation. Some ideas - send symbolic
: tea bags to various members of Congress, move to Virginia

You mean I have to MOVE in order to obtain my INALIENABLE rights?
What kind of American are you?

: , or convince
: the DC government to publicly take a stand to reject all those extra
: federal dollars they recieve in return for representation.:)

Actually, the congress won't even let DC spend it's OWN tax
money as it wants. The Federal payment is a LOT lower than
you think, and we would gladly trade it for the right to have
a tax on commuters who freeload on us the way all other large
city's do

: PS My own
: opinion is that DC should be part of Virginia or Maryland. Maybe you
: could start a drive to petition those state governments to annex you.:)

This is exactly what happened with Arlington, which used to be
part of Dc and is not a county in VA

josh halpern

Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

David Gossman wrote:
: All I have said, rather repetitively, is that options other than
: devastating the world economy via draconian CO2 reduction measures which
: would undouptedly require a rather totalitarian form of government
: should be researched.

Like Chicken Little, Gossman does little else but repeat that the
economic sky will fall should progress be made in reducing global carbon
emissions.

He uses the same dooms and gloom arguments that have always been used
by luddites of his ilk to oppose environmental progress.

Time and again doomsters like Gossman and like minded doom and gloom
economists have been proven wrong. Even as environmental legislation
has been passed, and local environments have improved the economy has
flourished.

Luddites like Gossman don't seem to be able to learn from recent
history.

--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
: Think, man. Think! Obviously, there is a hidden agenda

: here. These closed minded "enviros" wouldn't have a good
: excuse to establish a one-world totalitarian government if
: alternatives were enacted.

Charliew is upset that the domestication of man continues.

I find his paranoid rant quite amusing given his support for murdering
more people in Iraq unless they capituate to American orders.

Charliew does not believe that the country of Iraq is sovereign unto
itself, but rather believes that it exists to do the bidding of others,
and must do so under penalty of violence and death.

Environmentalists generally don't promote violence and death as
Charliew, McCarthy and other conservatives do.

--
<---->


David Gossman

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> Charliew is upset that the domestication of man continues.
>
Mr Nudds now wants to domesticate man. I wonder who's cattle he wants us
to be.

> I find his paranoid rant quite amusing given his support for murdering
> more people in Iraq unless they capituate to American orders.

For somebody who seems to support the idea of a world government Mr
Nudds seems to confuse the US with the UN rather easily.


>
> Charliew does not believe that the country of Iraq is sovereign unto
> itself, but rather believes that it exists to do the bidding of others,
> and must do so under penalty of violence and death.

On the other hand Mr Nudds would prefer that Sadam be allowed to build
weapons of mass destruction to use on his neighbors and the US. I'm sure
he looks at it as just another way to increase the price and thereby
discourage the use of oil while at the same time reducing the human
population of the earth. Whats good for the environment ....


>
> Environmentalists generally don't promote violence and death as
> Charliew, McCarthy and other conservatives do.
>

Mr Nudds's form of radical enviromentalism has as its inevitable logical
conclusion the violent death of a large fraction of the world's
population but like with so many other things, Mr Nudds isn't willing to
admit it.

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
> David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> : Joshua Halpern wrote:
> : > Fine. I live in Washington DC and pay federal taxes. Should I go
> : > down and torch the Capitol (It's closer to me than the White House
>
> : Seems to me that torching the capitol might be a little extreme but I
> : agree that you should have representation. Some ideas - send symbolic
> : tea bags to various members of Congress, move to Virginia
>
> You mean I have to MOVE in order to obtain my INALIENABLE rights?
> What kind of American are you?

I didn't say you had to. Just pointed out that as one option you have
the freedom to if you want those voting rights as bad as you claim you
do.


>
> : , or convince
> : the DC government to publicly take a stand to reject all those extra
> : federal dollars they recieve in return for representation.:)
>
> Actually, the congress won't even let DC spend it's OWN tax
> money as it wants. The Federal payment is a LOT lower than
> you think, and we would gladly trade it for the right to have
> a tax on commuters who freeload on us the way all other large
> city's do

No arguement. Are you actively lobbying for this or just complaining.


>
> : PS My own
> : opinion is that DC should be part of Virginia or Maryland. Maybe you
> : could start a drive to petition those state governments to annex you.:)
>
> This is exactly what happened with Arlington, which used to be
> part of Dc and is not a county in VA
>
> josh halpern

See, I gave you one good idea you seem to like and you don't even have
to torch the Capitol. PS As someone with libertarian leenings if the
government in DC were to cease to exist it wouldn't bother me much - so
much for science fiction.

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to
Into name calling again because you have no real argument or anything
else of substance to discuss Nudds. Either quit the spamming or provide
us with substance. Please explain in detail where the worlds energy
supply will come from without fossil fuels and demonstrate that it won't
involve a dramatic increase in costs. Without that demostration on your
part all of your claims are a lot of hot air. A significant increase in
energy costs will have a negative impact on the standard of living and
therfore the health of humans across the planet - or do you deny the
obvious - oops dumb question, of course you do.
--

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
: Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
: > : Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > : > Fine. I live in Washington DC and pay federal taxes. Should I go
: > : > down and torch the Capitol (It's closer to me than the White House
: > : Seems to me that torching the capitol might be a little extreme but I
: > : agree that you should have representation. Some ideas - send symbolic
: > : tea bags to various members of Congress, move to Virginia
: > You mean I have to MOVE in order to obtain my INALIENABLE rights?
: > What kind of American are you?

: I didn't say you had to. Just pointed out that as one option you have
: the freedom to if you want those voting rights as bad as you claim you
: do.

Hmm.... If those xxxx really wanted the vote they would
move North, South, East West.....seems I've heard that
argument before. You guys are all for your own rights
and liberties, but lord help some poor soul who has
been deprived of his rights if you can't make a buck
off it or worse yet might lose some. Like any good
Libertarian I want it all..the right to live where
I want (in the US) AND the right to elect voting
representatives to Congress. OTOH I might be willing
to trade the right to vote for not paying Federal
Income Tax. All other US Terratories DO NOT PAY
INCOME TAX, why do residents of DC?

: > : , or convince


: > : the DC government to publicly take a stand to reject all those extra
: > : federal dollars they recieve in return for representation.:)
: >
: > Actually, the congress won't even let DC spend it's OWN tax
: > money as it wants. The Federal payment is a LOT lower than
: > you think, and we would gladly trade it for the right to have
: > a tax on commuters who freeload on us the way all other large
: > city's do

: No arguement. Are you actively lobbying for this or just complaining.

I can't lobby. I have no voting representative in Congress...
you OTOH, could lobby YOUR member of Congress and Senators.

By the way, the amount of Federal Taxes paid by DC residents
considerably exceeds any Federal payments.
: >
: > : PS My own


: > : opinion is that DC should be part of Virginia or Maryland. Maybe you
: > : could start a drive to petition those state governments to annex you.:)
: >
: > This is exactly what happened with Arlington, which used to be
: > part of Dc and is not a county in VA
: >
: > josh halpern

: See, I gave you one good idea you seem to like

This good idea has been around for years. The problem
with it is that MD wants no part of it. The state is
in political balance btw city, suburb and country now.
Picking up DC would mean that btw them DC and Balt. would
dominate state politics.

josh halpern

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
> Hmm.... If those xxxx really wanted the vote they would
> move North, South, East West.....seems I've heard that
> argument before. You guys are all for your own rights
> and liberties, but lord help some poor soul who has
> been deprived of his rights if you can't make a buck
> off it or worse yet might lose some. Like any good
> Libertarian I want it all..the right to live where
> I want (in the US) AND the right to elect voting
> representatives to Congress.

A libertarian with the nerve to live in DC? :) I am impressed. How do
you stand it?

> OTOH I might be willing
> to trade the right to vote for not paying Federal
> Income Tax. All other US Terratories DO NOT PAY
> INCOME TAX, why do residents of DC?

Can I do that too - pleassssse?


>
> I can't lobby. I have no voting representative in Congress...
> you OTOH, could lobby YOUR member of Congress and Senators.
>

That certainly doesn't stop foriegn and other nonvoting folks from
lobbying.:)

> By the way, the amount of Federal Taxes paid by DC residents
> considerably exceeds any Federal payments.

Isn't that true for all of us.:) I think the federal government is a
huge money eating machine with little output but a lot of hot air. Boy
it must get warm in that town when Congress is in session.


>
> This good idea has been around for years. The problem
> with it is that MD wants no part of it. The state is
> in political balance btw city, suburb and country now.
> Picking up DC would mean that btw them DC and Balt. would
> dominate state politics.

Sounds like "Virginia is the place to be" - Richard Henry Lee musical
"1776" - I think?
>
> josh halpern

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Nov 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/19/97
to

David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
: Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > By the way, the amount of Federal Taxes paid by DC residents

: > considerably exceeds any Federal payments.

: Isn't that true for all of us.:) I think the federal government is a
: huge money eating machine with little output but a lot of hot air. Boy
: it must get warm in that town when Congress is in session.

No there are many states where the aggregate flow of federal funds
into the state EXCEEDS all federal taxes payed. These tend to be
southern and western states. The largest negative imbalance
is (was??) NY.

OK Dave you can have the last word if you want. I think we have
pushed this about as far as it can go.

Josh Halpern

P.S. I fibbed a bit for effect, I am really a social democrat.....

Modem

unread,
Nov 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/20/97
to

JB>David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
JB>: Michael Tobis wrote:
JB>: >
JB>: > David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
JB>: > : All I have said, rather repetitively, is that options other than
JB>: > : devastating the world economy via draconian CO2 reduction measures whi
JB>: > : would undouptedly require a rather totalitarian form of government
JB>: >
JB>: > You have never supported the excessive assertions about totalitarian
JB>: > government. Are you one of those who confuses taxes with totalitarianism

JB>: Taxes without representation is totalitarianism! Remember that little
JB>: party held in Boston a few years ago.:)

JB>Fine. I live in Washington DC and pay federal taxes. Should I go
JB>down and torch the Capitol (It's closer to me than the White House

JB>josh halpern


Nah, don't set fire to the capitol building, it's mostly made out of
stone and wouldn't burn worth a hoot. Now,a place like the IRS that is
full of combustable papers would be different.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

Modem (Mo...@sciboard.spd.louisville.edu) wrote:
: Nah, don't set fire to the capitol building, it's mostly made out of

: stone and wouldn't burn worth a hoot. Now,a place like the IRS that is
: full of combustable papers would be different.

It's not well known by Americans, but you northern neighbours once
burned the white house in retaliation for american attacks on our soil.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

: Michael Tobis wrote:
: > You have never supported the excessive assertions about totalitarian
: > government. Are you one of those who confuses taxes with totalitarianism?

David Gossman wrote:
: Taxes without representation is totalitarianism!

I'm sorry, your new definition of totalitarianism does not correspond
with the standard dictionary definition.

The redefinition of common words to further their political ends, is
a dishonest technique that is strongly associated with those who deny
their social responsibilities.


David Gossman wrote:
: Seriously, to produce the


: cubacks of the levels that are really required how can you possibly
: believe that democraticly elected officials could survive the levels of
: taxes that would be required.

Is this interesting. On one hand Gossman is a cornucopian who argues
that the amounts of CO2 man is dumping into the atmosphere is too small
to cause climate change, and on the other hand Gossman is whines about
the economic sky falling as a predicted result of the drastic cuts in
carbon emissions that would be required to reduce emissions to 1990
levels.

And of course we also have Gossman's denialist brethren demanding that
climate models can't be trusted because of their complexity, while at
the same time insisting that the economic models of impending doom
precisely predict the future economy.

As I have said many times in the past, deception - particularly self
deception - is the hallmark of conservative thought.

David Gossman wrote:
: I can see local farmers running alcohol


: stills to run their farm equipment being arrested for not paying the

: carbon tax. It is not to tough to imagine given the outrageous actions
: of our current IRS, BATF, EPA etc.

And no doubt UFO's and alien abductions through the very same eyes.


David Gossman wrote:
: So could that lack of information also cause the models to fail to


: produce accurate predictions of the future? Of course they could.

Models are not exact by their very nature. This is spectacularly true
of the economic models of doom that Gossman imagines.

David Gossman wrote:
: A


: small decrease in the solar constant or a variety of other factors could
: result in the models being way off in either direction.

Doesn't Gossman know that the solar constant is measured? Perhaps he
will tell us which observations confirm his theory of long term changes
in solar output. The scientific community would love to see his data.


David Gossman wrote:
: Estimates in the popular press suggest that the cost in the US alone of


: holding CO2 emissions to 1990 levels at 100 billion/year - not
: worldwide, not one-sixth current levels.

Reminds me of the claim by an ozone depletion denialist whose doomster
claim was that banning CFC's was costing the world $2 trillion per year.

What economic model was used to produce this estimate Mr Gossman?
Let me remind you of something you just said...

" So could that lack of information also cause the models to fail to

produce accurate predictions of the future? Of course they could." -
David Gossman

David Gossman wrote:
: I do wonder why engineered solutions are not being seriously discussed

They are being discussed and rejected. Perhaps you will think about
why they are being rejected.

Let me give you a hint. They are rejected for the same reason that
increased reproduction is not the means to improve automobile safety.


--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Luddites like Gossman don't seem to be able to learn from recent
: > history.

David Gossman wrote:
: Into name calling again because you have no real argument or anything


: else of substance to discuss Nudds.

Gossman is upset that I refer to those who oppose environmental
progress as luddites.

I have yet to see him become upset at luddites who refer to
environmentalists as communists, fascists, thieves, murderers, etc.

Gossman's complaints are an example of a 0'K radiation source calling
the sun black. - Quite laughable.

David Gossman wrote:
: Either quit the spamming or provide us with substance.

In the last year, I posted over 1,000 article fragments supporting my
statements, or disproving he statements made by others.

David Gossman wrote:
: Please explain in detail where the worlds energy


: supply will come from without fossil fuels and demonstrate that it won't
: involve a dramatic increase in costs.

John McCarthy's nuclear paradise consists of 200,000 nuclear reactors,
I believe the figure is 670 for Saddam & Iraq alone. Total cost of
construction is something like $800 trillion. To be paid every 50
years.

McCarthy considers it a bargain.... A yearly $4000 electric bill for
every average family. Don't you?

--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Charliew is upset that the domestication of man continues.

David Gossman wrote:
: Mr Nudds now wants to domesticate man. I wonder who's cattle he wants us
: to be.

My wants are not relevant, and neither are yours. The domestication
of man will continue with our without us. It is a result of increased
contact between people.

If Gossman, Charliew and those who have fallen for the "rugged
individualism" scam truly wish to return mankind to the wild, they will
need to reduce world population size. They don't have the guts to admit
this fact to themselves or each other.

Scott Nudds wrote:
: > I find his paranoid rant quite amusing given his support for murdering


: > more people in Iraq unless they capituate to American orders.

David Gossman wrote:
: For somebody who seems to support the idea of a world government Mr


: Nudds seems to confuse the US with the UN rather easily.

Gossman confuses the issue in order to avoid the point. What does it
matter who is pulling the strings. Gossman believes that threat of
deadly force should be used by the world in order to force the sovereign
country of Iraq to follow orders from some external government.

Clearly Gossman and those who seek to dominate the sovereign country of
Iraq are supporters of world government. Yet these are typically the
very same people who whine against such an organization.

I expect more constancy from irrational country bumpkins, than we
get from Gossman, Charlew, McCarthy and other members of the lunatic
fringe.


Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Charliew does not believe that the country of Iraq is sovereign unto


: > itself, but rather believes that it exists to do the bidding of others,
: > and must do so under penalty of violence and death.

David Gossman wrote:
: On the other hand Mr Nudds would prefer that Sadam be allowed to build


: weapons of mass destruction to use on his neighbors and the US.

Two paragraphs above Gossman accuses me of supporting world government
and now he posts this. As an extremist, he will say anything, as long
as it supports his political religion.

The contradiction remains with Gossman. Either be opposes world
government and respects the sovereignty of countries like Iraq, or he
rejects the concept of state sovereignty in favor of world government.

Gossman doesn't answer questions. Here is another he will refuse to
answer.

The U.S. has all of the weapons that Iraq is accused of developing.
Will Gossman support the bombing of America by Iraq and U.N. forces
unless America turns over its weapons of mass destruction to the U.N.
and Iraq? Or does Gossman believe that in his new world order, there
should be one set of laws for the U.S. and another set of laws for every
other nation?


Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Environmentalists generally don't promote violence and death as


: > Charliew, McCarthy and other conservatives do.

David Gossman wrote:
: Mr Nudds's form of radical enviromentalism has as its inevitable logical


: conclusion the violent death of a large fraction of the world's
: population but like with so many other things, Mr Nudds isn't willing to
: admit it.

Gossman thinks that by yelling his statements become truth. I
challenge him to support with evidence that I am in any way a "radical
environmentalist".

Perhaps Gossman defines "radical" to mean anyone who actually argues
for clean air, clean water, rational and sustainable development,
population stabilization, etc.

No. What is radical here are the prophets of doom who condone war,
violence, destruction, and the other aspects of the conservative
philosophy of death.

What is radical are those from Gossmans camp who claim that
communication is theft of life: That restricted use is theft of
property: That slavery to the marketplace is freedom: That rabid self
interest is the ultimate good: That lower taxes mean higher government
revenue: That giving to the wealthy improves the condition of the poor,
etc. etc. etc.

How pathetic these extremists must be to refer to rational moderates
such as myself as radical extremists. It says much about how far they
have removed themselves from reality.

--- For slowing the introduction of microwave ovens, extremist McCarthy
writes about Ralph Nader...

"I was accused of accusing Nader of murder. I wrote and still maintain
that it was only negligent homicide." - John McCarthy 14 Jul 1996

--
<---->


David Gossman

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Luddites like Gossman don't seem to be able to learn from recent
> : > history.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Into name calling again because you have no real argument or anything
> : else of substance to discuss Nudds.
>
> Gossman is upset that I refer to those who oppose environmental
> progress as luddites.
>
> I have yet to see him become upset at luddites who refer to
> environmentalists as communists, fascists, thieves, murderers, etc.
>
> Gossman's complaints are an example of a 0'K radiation source calling
> the sun black. - Quite laughable.

Still can't come up with a real answer aye Mr. Nudds? Amused at your
ineptness would be a better description than "upset". Seems to me the
individual whom must resort to name calling is more likely to be
"upset".


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Either quit the spamming or provide us with substance.
>
> In the last year, I posted over 1,000 article fragments supporting my
> statements, or disproving he statements made by others.

Ya - just like this one!


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Please explain in detail where the worlds energy
> : supply will come from without fossil fuels and demonstrate that it won't
> : involve a dramatic increase in costs.
>
> John McCarthy's nuclear paradise consists of 200,000 nuclear reactors,
> I believe the figure is 670 for Saddam & Iraq alone. Total cost of
> construction is something like $800 trillion. To be paid every 50
> years.
>
> McCarthy considers it a bargain.... A yearly $4000 electric bill for
> every average family. Don't you?

Don't have an answer of your own Mr Nudds?

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

Phil Hays wrote:
>
> David Gossman <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote in article
> <346F9A...@gcisolutions.com>...
>
> > Seriously, to produce the cutbacks of the levels that are really

> > required how can you possibly believe that democraticly
> > elected officials could survive the levels of taxes that would
> > be required.
>
> Suppose we decided to end the income tax and replace the funding that the
> income tax raises with a carbon tax. Please notice that there is no net
> economic impact from this change in taxes.
>
> Over time, people would avoid this tax by buying higher milage cars, by
> improving the energy efficiency of their houses and businesses and by
> switching to non-fossil based energy, like biomass, nuclear and solar. To
> keep the funding constant, the rate of the tax would have to increase with
> time. This would increase the tax avoidance, just what we want. How far
> would this process go? Depends on all sorts of unkown factors... However I
> would be rather suprised if it didn't at least halve CO2 releases.

This is a very interesting concept! While the net economic impact might
not be changed think of the flack all of those current special interest
tax breaks are going to raise.:) Seems to me your suggestion is a fairly
flat consumption oriented tax similar to some of the others being
floated by some Republicans. Have any of them picked up on this idea? I
certainly haven't heard about it.


>
> > I can see local farmers running alcohol stills to run their farm
> > equipment being arrested for not paying the carbon tax.
>

> I can't. Biomass fuels should not be taxed.

Sounds good but can you justify it. I had thought that I had read that
timber was a way to soak up CO2. This would just rerelease it. Sure
would be a boost for the alcohol (ADM) folks as well as the solar and
wind equipment manufacturers. Think congress would be willing to give up
all of the other control on the economy just to promote one industry
sector?


>
> > So could that lack of information also cause the models to fail to

> > produce accurate predictions of the future? Of course they could. A


> > small decrease in the solar constant or a variety of other factors could

> > result in the models being way off in either direction. That would seem
> > to me to be a very good reason to look at engineered solutions rather
> > thatn the simplistic and incredibly costly approach of reducing CO2
> > emissions to one-sixth of current levels.
>
> For now, engineered solutions have a feedback problem. As we don't know
> exactly what CO2 releases and other forcings will do to the climate, how
> could we know exactly how much sulpher to haul into the stratosphere? Just
> a WAG guess? And the pattern of cooling from junk in the stratosphere
> would not match the pattern of warming from additional CO2. If we exactly
> matched global totals the poles would warm and the tropics would cool. How
> would this change global weather patterns? Or ocean currents? None?
> Don't bet the farm.

I wouldn't bet the farm. All I have asked for is a balanced review of
options by scientists, the press and the politicians. - I don't see it
in any of those sectors. PS I'm not sure I would recomend sulphur anyway
and what about the option of orbitting solar mirrors that would allow
you to control radiation flux so that the imbalance you speak of would
not occur. Again I do not profess to have answers - just believe there
are more questions that need to be asked and answered before we all jump
on the same ship.


>
> A far better planet to try out the engineering of climate is Mars.

When can I go?:)


>
> > Estimates in the popular press suggest that the cost in the US alone of
> > holding CO2 emissions to 1990 levels at 100 billion/year - not
> > worldwide, not one-sixth current levels.
>

> The net cost of a carbon tax (replacing the income tax) is near zero.
> Might even be negative.

Like I said - very interesting option. Would love to see the Republicans
add it to the lineup for next year's scheduled discussion of options for
changing the tax code.
--

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> : Michael Tobis wrote:
> : > You have never supported the excessive assertions about totalitarian
> : > government. Are you one of those who confuses taxes with totalitarianism?
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Taxes without representation is totalitarianism!
>
> I'm sorry, your new definition of totalitarianism does not correspond
> with the standard dictionary definition.

It is a form that totalitarianism can take wether you happen to like it
or not.


>
> The redefinition of common words to further their political ends, is
> a dishonest technique that is strongly associated with those who deny
> their social responsibilities.

Like liberals.:) Please Mr Nudds would you kindly point out to all of us
where in the constitution our social responsibilities are identified. I
see rights and freedoms. Only a socialist like yourself can redefine
those into "social responsibilities".


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Seriously, to produce the

> : cubacks of the levels that are really required how can you possibly


> : believe that democraticly elected officials could survive the levels of
> : taxes that would be required.
>

> Is this interesting. On one hand Gossman is a cornucopian who argues
> that the amounts of CO2 man is dumping into the atmosphere is too small
> to cause climate change, and on the other hand Gossman is whines about
> the economic sky falling as a predicted result of the drastic cuts in
> carbon emissions that would be required to reduce emissions to 1990
> levels.

Please Mr Nudds identify when and where I made that arguement. I have
not. Another individual in the chain of discussion has provided an
interesting economic alternative that just might accomplish your
intended goal and I find the idea rather interesting. Pity it is nothing
like what I have seen suggested by any of the politicians claiming to be
trying to deal with the issue. PS Your logic is very faulty! (Hint -
apples and oranges)


>
> And of course we also have Gossman's denialist brethren demanding that
> climate models can't be trusted because of their complexity, while at
> the same time insisting that the economic models of impending doom
> precisely predict the future economy.

I don't believe in either of them. On the other hand you seem to imply
that you believe the climate models but not the ecomnomic ones. As
someone whom has taken graduate level climatology and planetary science
classes I have a technical basis for not trusing climate models.
Economic models on the other hand have proven themselves wrong for so
long that I doubt a technical basis is needed.


>
> As I have said many times in the past, deception - particularly self
> deception - is the hallmark of conservative thought.

Keep repeating it and we will keep laughing as you continue to deceive
yourself. PS As I have also said before you make a major error in
atempting to classify me solely as a conservative.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : I can see local farmers running alcohol


> : stills to run their farm equipment being arrested for not paying the

> : carbon tax. It is not to tough to imagine given the outrageous actions
> : of our current IRS, BATF, EPA etc.
>
> And no doubt UFO's and alien abductions through the very same eyes.

Mr Nudds apparently believes that it is perfectly acceptable for the
government (IRS) to seize all of one's personal property and require
that you prove yourself innocent to get it back. Mr Nudds - the x-files
is a fictional TV show not a conservative plot - hate to break your
bubble on that one.:)
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : So could that lack of information also cause the models to fail to


> : produce accurate predictions of the future? Of course they could.
>

> Models are not exact by their very nature. This is spectacularly true
> of the economic models of doom that Gossman imagines.

You don't seem to be able to read very well - why don't you put your
glassses back on. Again I provided numbers from the popular press as a
basis for comparison and specificly pointed out that I did not
necessarily support, much less imagine, any of them.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : A


> : small decrease in the solar constant or a variety of other factors could
> : result in the models being way off in either direction.
>

> Doesn't Gossman know that the solar constant is measured? Perhaps he
> will tell us which observations confirm his theory of long term changes
> in solar output. The scientific community would love to see his data.

Did I present a theory? Did I advocate a theory. Please Mr Nudds you
have dificulty enough understanding what is written. Now you seem to be
making things up. Of course I am certain that YOU can point out all of
the factors that the models have not taken into account and why they
don't need to. (Anyone care to place odds on Mr Nudds providing me with
a substantive answer or calling me another name?)
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Estimates in the popular press suggest that the cost in the US alone of


> : holding CO2 emissions to 1990 levels at 100 billion/year - not
> : worldwide, not one-sixth current levels.
>

> Reminds me of the claim by an ozone depletion denialist whose doomster
> claim was that banning CFC's was costing the world $2 trillion per year.
>
> What economic model was used to produce this estimate Mr Gossman?
> Let me remind you of something you just said...
>

> " So could that lack of information also cause the models to fail to

> produce accurate predictions of the future? Of course they could." -
> David Gossman

Yes It could be better or it could be worse. Please Mr Nudds we are
waiting with baited breath for the TRUTH as only you know and can
provide it. What is the answer. What will the economic impact be and
what model do you use?:)


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : I do wonder why engineered solutions are not being seriously discussed
>
> They are being discussed and rejected.


Perhaps in silence. Just as one example Chemical and Engineering News
has been running a number of major and minor articles on the climate
change issue. Not one of them even mentions engineering solutions.

> Perhaps you will think about
> why they are being rejected.

Even if such options are ultimately rejected don't you think that they
should be closely examined. I know dumb guestion - you won't consider
any option that doesn't meet your predetermined goals wether it is
technically valid or not.


>
> Let me give you a hint. They are rejected for the same reason that
> increased reproduction is not the means to improve automobile safety.
>

I must admit, Mr Nudds, you do have a weird way of looking at things.:)

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> : Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Charliew is upset that the domestication of man continues.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Mr Nudds now wants to domesticate man. I wonder who's cattle he wants us
> : to be.
>
> My wants are not relevant, and neither are yours. The domestication
> of man will continue with our without us. It is a result of increased
> contact between people.

Many social scientists (did I say that?) would argue that the type of
increased contact you discuss here could or will result in war or other
types of violence. Is that your defintition of domestication?


>
> If Gossman, Charliew and those who have fallen for the "rugged
> individualism" scam truly wish to return mankind to the wild, they will
> need to reduce world population size. They don't have the guts to admit
> this fact to themselves or each other.

Who said anything about returning to the wild? On the other hand
supporting individual rights is something I do advocate. I assume from
your post that you must find the concept of individual rights rather
repulsive. Personally I suspect that if mankind cannot reduce the growth
of the human population on Earth by eventually moving into space that
war will be the ultimate solution. Seems to be a human constant. (PS Mr
Nudds - Just to keep you from getting confused this(war) is not
something I advocate as a solution to population growth.)


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : For somebody who seems to support the idea of a world government Mr
> : Nudds seems to confuse the US with the UN rather easily.
>
> Gossman confuses the issue in order to avoid the point. What does it
> matter who is pulling the strings. Gossman believes that threat of
> deadly force should be used by the world in order to force the sovereign
> country of Iraq to follow orders from some external government.

No. I believe that anyone is justified in disarming a madman whom has
already demonstrated his willingness to kill. You on the other hand seem
to be the one that is confused.


>
> Clearly Gossman and those who seek to dominate the sovereign country of
> Iraq are supporters of world government. Yet these are typically the
> very same people who whine against such an organization.

One must conclude from Mr Nudds' comments that because the nazis were a
sovereign nation that the genocide they practiced was perfectly
acceptable and that the rest of the world should not have interfered.
Apparently Mr Nudds considers the idea of handing a genuine power hungry
lunatic, whom has no respect for human life, weapons of mass destruction
acceptable simply because he is a dictator of a country. Seems to me
that Sadam's past actions and willingness to cause harm morally justify
and perhaps require the interference with sovereign rights that Mr Nudds
is so reluctant to interfere with.

>
> I expect more constancy from irrational country bumpkins, than we
> get from Gossman, Charlew, McCarthy and other members of the lunatic
> fringe.

Stay with it Nudds - can't deal with substance so call people names.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : On the other hand Mr Nudds would prefer that Sadam be allowed to build
> : weapons of mass destruction to use on his neighbors and the US.
>
> Two paragraphs above Gossman accuses me of supporting world government
> and now he posts this. As an extremist, he will say anything, as long
> as it supports his political religion.
>
> The contradiction remains with Gossman. Either be opposes world
> government and respects the sovereignty of countries like Iraq, or he
> rejects the concept of state sovereignty in favor of world government.

To clarify your confusion. I oppose the idea of a world government
unless it is founded on the fundemental principal of protecting
individual rights and freedom. That is clearly not the basis of the UN.
On the other hand wether the US by itself or in conjunction with other
countries acts to disarm Sadam I do not care - just so it gets done.
That is a simple, logical act of self defence - no more no less.


>
> Gossman doesn't answer questions. Here is another he will refuse to
> answer.

Coming from you that is laughable.


>
> The U.S. has all of the weapons that Iraq is accused of developing.
> Will Gossman support the bombing of America by Iraq and U.N. forces
> unless America turns over its weapons of mass destruction to the U.N.
> and Iraq? Or does Gossman believe that in his new world order, there
> should be one set of laws for the U.S. and another set of laws for every
> other nation?

At the point where the US is taken over by a dictator that shows a
willingness to use these weapons on his own people as well as the people
of a neighboring counrty - say Canada - I would hope that someone,
somewhere in the world would take such a nut out. (Yes Mr Nudds that
means kill him.) PS Given the nature of many Americans it is more likely
that some patriotic American, or a group of them, would do the job
first.


>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Environmentalists generally don't promote violence and death as
> : > Charliew, McCarthy and other conservatives do.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Mr Nudds's form of radical enviromentalism has as its inevitable logical
> : conclusion the violent death of a large fraction of the world's
> : population but like with so many other things, Mr Nudds isn't willing to
> : admit it.
>
> Gossman thinks that by yelling his statements become truth. I
> challenge him to support with evidence that I am in any way a "radical
> environmentalist".

Oh my, now I "yelled" and hurt his feelings. Let's have a vote how many
of you reading this consider Mr Nudds to be a "radical
environmentalist". If not what would you label him - please as tempting
as it might be lets not stoop to Mr Nudds' level of name calling - just
a sociopolitical label that you find more fitting based on those
thousands of informative Nudds' posts.:)


>
> What is radical are those from Gossmans camp who claim that
> communication is theft of life:

What?

> That restricted use is theft of
> property:

In the same way that restricted personnel freedom is the beginning of
slavery.

> That slavery to the marketplace is freedom:

Please Mr Nudds feel free to join a commune. One of the beauties behind
freedom is that allows groups of people to establish there own economic
system within their own community if they so choose. On the other hand
Mr Nudds thiks that the marketplace is an entity that can inslave
someone. Please Mr Nudds who is this "marketplace"?:)

> That rabid self
> interest is the ultimate good:

Get a grip - self interest is the one clear common human condition. Any
system that attempts to deny the concept has always fallen apart rather
quikly.

> That lower taxes mean higher government
> revenue:

No. Lower taxes means less government.

> That giving to the wealthy improves the condition of the poor,
> etc. etc. etc.

"Giving to the wealthy" - Do you know anyone that does this? Frankly I
think my CCF kids are in greater need of real giving. Oh I understand
now, your getting giving and taking confused again aren't you Mr
Nudds.:)


>
> How pathetic these extremists must be to refer to rational moderates
> such as myself as radical extremists. It says much about how far they
> have removed themselves from reality.
>

I stand corrected - Mr Nudds you are a "rational moderate" who wants to
let Sadam keep playing with his weapons of mass dstruction.

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
: : Scott Nudds wrote:
: : > Charliew is upset that the domestication of man continues.
: David Gossman wrote:
: : Mr Nudds now wants to domesticate man. I wonder who's cattle he wants us
: : to be.

This is a long range research program extending over thousands
of years without much success to date.

josh halpern

Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

David Gossman wrote:
: It is a form that totalitarianism can take wether you happen to like it
: or not.

Scott Nudds wrote:
: > The redefinition of common words to further their political ends, is


: > a dishonest technique that is strongly associated with those who deny
: > their social responsibilities.

David Gossman wrote:
: Like liberals.:) Please Mr Nudds would you kindly point out to all of us


: where in the constitution our social responsibilities are identified. I
: see rights and freedoms. Only a socialist like yourself can redefine
: those into "social responsibilities".

Extremist conservatives like Gossman think that the social
responsibilities must exist in the U.S. constitution in order to be
respected and their following expected by others. His is a foolish
request.

Social responsibility is defined by the laws of a society,
specifically by the moral framework from which those laws derive and
clarify and refine.

No where in the U.S. constitution does it state that one man may not
damage another. The fact that extremist conservatives like Gossman
imply that conduct not prohibited specifically by the constitution is
acceptable, legally or morally, identifies clearly the source of the
moral and ethical decline in America.


Scott Nudds wrote:
: > And of course we also have Gossman's denialist brethren demanding that


: > climate models can't be trusted because of their complexity, while at
: > the same time insisting that the economic models of impending doom
: > precisely predict the future economy.

David Gossman wrote:
: I don't believe in either of them. On the other hand you seem to imply


: that you believe the climate models but not the ecomnomic ones.

I do absolutely. The difference between them is like night and day.
Economic models are inherently untrustworthy because at their very heart
is the unpredictable whim of human desire. At the heart of climate
models is rock solid physics and chemistry.


David Gossman wrote:
: As


: someone whom has taken graduate level climatology and planetary science
: classes I have a technical basis for not trusing climate models.

To say what? That the climate will warm? Or that there will be
2 inches of rain in Yokahama Japan on July 3, 2074?

You jabber as if all aspects of a climate model are equally
trustworthy.

The truth of the matter is that the direction and extent of the
general predictions of the current models all generally agree, and agree
roughly with observation. Hence the outline of the warming to come is
trustworthy. The details are however, very much unclear.

This translates into saying that global warming will continue as Co2
levels rise, but the exact extent and local ramifications of the warming
are yet to be accurately determined.

This is reality... So much for Conservative denialism.


David Gossman wrote:
: Economic models on the other hand have proven themselves wrong for so


: long that I doubt a technical basis is needed.

Indeed. Doomsters who are predicting the decline of society should
steps be taken to reduce Co2 emissions can not be trusted, even when
expressing opinions in the very areas in which they claim to be experts.

I would also like to point out that Cost/Benefit Analysis is based on
the economic models that you claim are untrustworthy and which have
proven themselves wrong. Yet, we find conservatives pushing for CBA as
a measure of all things. A wonderful pie in the sky desire to be sure,
and an instrument of political patronage to be sure.


: > David Gossman wrote:
: > : I can see local farmers running alcohol
: > : stills to run their farm equipment being arrested for not paying the
: > : carbon tax. It is not to tough to imagine given the outrageous actions
: > : of our current IRS, BATF, EPA etc.


Scott Nudds wrote:
: > And no doubt UFO's and alien abductions through the very same eyes.

David Gossman wrote:
: Mr Nudds apparently believes that it is perfectly acceptable for the


: government (IRS) to seize all of one's personal property and require
: that you prove yourself innocent to get it back.

I have never been a member of a Republican party and have never
supported the kind of seizures mentioned by Gossman (above), and which
were instigated by the Reagan administration.

In fact, I have criticized literally hundreds of mindless conservatives
for their support for such tactics. Their response was typically to
accuse me of being a communist or a liberal who was soft on crime.

So once again, we find Gossman grasping at straws in his attempt to
vilify others. As I said many times, deception, particularly self
deception, is the hallmark of conservative thought.


David Gossman wrote:
: As I have also said before you make a major error in


: atempting to classify me solely as a conservative.

Readers will note that I often prefix the term with the word
"extremist". This addition is apparently not sufficiently descriptive
to appease Gossman.


: > Doesn't Gossman know that the solar constant is measured? Perhaps he


: > will tell us which observations confirm his theory of long term changes
: > in solar output. The scientific community would love to see his data.

David Gossman wrote:
: Did I present a theory? Did I advocate a theory.

Yes. And everyone except you know that you have.


: > David Gossman wrote:
: > : Estimates in the popular press suggest that the cost in the US alone of
: > : holding CO2 emissions to 1990 levels at 100 billion/year - not
: > : worldwide, not one-sixth current levels.
: >
: > Reminds me of the claim by an ozone depletion denialist whose doomster
: > claim was that banning CFC's was costing the world $2 trillion per year.
: >
: > What economic model was used to produce this estimate Mr Gossman?
: > Let me remind you of something you just said...
: >
: > " So could that lack of information also cause the models to fail to
: > produce accurate predictions of the future? Of course they could." -
: > David Gossman

David Gossman wrote:
: Yes It could be better or it could be worse.

Or it could be nothing, or beneficial, a net plus to the economy. Why
don't you answer the question put to you Gossman?


: > Perhaps you will think about


: > why they are being rejected.

David Gossman wrote:
: Even if such options are ultimately rejected don't you think that they
: should be closely examined.

How closely something needs to be examined depends on its practicality.
The technical fix you are proposing has been rejected for the same


reason that increased reproduction is not the means to improve
automobile safety.


--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > I have yet to see him become upset at luddites who refer to

: > environmentalists as communists, fascists, thieves, murderers, etc.
: >
: > Gossman's complaints are an example of a 0'K radiation source calling
: > the sun black. - Quite laughable.

David Gossman wrote:
: iSeems to me the


: individual whom must resort to name calling is more likely to be
: "upset".

I agree with Gossman on this point, and make the observation that I am
not the party doing the complaining. Gossman is the party upset enough
to complain.

: > John McCarthy's nuclear paradise consists of 200,000 nuclear reactors,


: > I believe the figure is 670 for Saddam & Iraq alone. Total cost of
: > construction is something like $800 trillion. To be paid every 50
: > years.
: >
: > McCarthy considers it a bargain.... A yearly $4000 electric bill for
: > every average family. Don't you?

David Gossman wrote:
: Don't have an answer of your own Mr Nudds?

When Gossman can't respond to an issue, he attempts to change the subject.

I pity him.

--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

: > David Gossman wrote:
: > : Mr Nudds now wants to domesticate man. I wonder who's cattle he wants us
: > : to be.
: >

Scott Nudds wrote:
: > My wants are not relevant, and neither are yours. The domestication


: > of man will continue with our without us. It is a result of increased
: > contact between people.

David Gossman wrote:
: Many social scientists (did I say that?) would argue that the type of


: increased contact you discuss here could or will result in war or other
: types of violence. Is that your defintition of domestication?

Unless both sides find war a desirable thing, war will not continue
and both sides will agree to end hostilities and settle their
differences through negotiation.

The domestication of man continues...


Scott Nudds wrote:
: > If Gossman, Charliew and those who have fallen for the "rugged


: > individualism" scam truly wish to return mankind to the wild, they will
: > need to reduce world population size. They don't have the guts to admit
: > this fact to themselves or each other.

David Gossman wrote:
: Who said anything about returning to the wild?

Every Anarchist, Libertarian and like minded Conservative who laments
for the good old days where men road horses and wore spurs, and native
americans were killed for sport.


David Gossman wrote:
: On the other hand

: supporting individual rights is something I do advocate. I assume from


: your post that you must find the concept of individual rights rather
: repulsive.

That depends on the alleged "right" wouldn't it?


David Gossman wrote:
: Personally I suspect that if mankind cannot reduce the growth


: of the human population on Earth by eventually moving into space that
: war will be the ultimate solution. Seems to be a human constant.

The adoption of formalized labor systems - capitalism for example -
will destroy the families of third world nation just as the grubbing for
money and trinkets has destroyed the family unit in the west.

Population size will peak and slowly decline - Current estimates are
at about 12 billion - well over the carrying capacity of the planet
given western levels of consumption.


: > David Gossman wrote:
: > : For somebody who seems to support the idea of a world government Mr
: > : Nudds seems to confuse the US with the UN rather easily.

Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Gossman confuses the issue in order to avoid the point. What does it


: > matter who is pulling the strings. Gossman believes that threat of
: > deadly force should be used by the world in order to force the sovereign
: > country of Iraq to follow orders from some external government.

David Gossman wrote:
: No. I believe that anyone is justified in disarming a madman whom has


: already demonstrated his willingness to kill. You on the other hand seem
: to be the one that is confused.

Does Gossman gives the U.N. license to invade America and arrest
disarm the country? Or is he the kind of stateist who believes that
might makes right?

But what about the madmen in other countries who have established
biological and nuclear weapons production programs? Israel for example
has both, and is without question run by terrorists, murderers, racists
and madmen. Why does Gossman exclude the terrorist nation of Israel
ripe for the disarmament of their weapons of mass destruction?

It appears that in Gossmans world police state, the police and the
beloved of the police have special immunity from the law they impose on
others.


Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Clearly Gossman and those who seek to dominate the sovereign country of


: > Iraq are supporters of world government. Yet these are typically the
: > very same people who whine against such an organization.

David Gossman wrote:
: One must conclude from Mr Nudds' comments that because the nazis were a


: sovereign nation that the genocide they practiced was perfectly
: acceptable and that the rest of the world should not have interfered.

I believe it is a Internet rule that by raising the issue of NAZI's
Gossman immediately loses the argument.

To speak to his point, I need only point out that I have expressed no
opinion on IRAQ at all. I have no position to justify.

Gossman and the others conservative extremists who whine about the
loss of liberty and whine about the establishment of world government -
meaning world law - are the first to spout rabid invective at Iraq, and
the first to support military action, invasion, murder, etc.

This is an example of the conservative philosophy of death.

It is also an example of conservative hypocrisy, philosophical
inconsistency, and general mindlessness.

Sovereignty is paramount, fear the new world order, extremist
conservatives jabber out of one side of their mouths.... Murder
Sadam, we reject Iraq's sovereignty must threaten murder and violence to
protect the world from its evil, they jabber out of the other side of
their mouths...

Death to socialism they chant from one face - we must commit murder in
Iraq to protect the greater world community, they proclaim with the
other.

Mindless two faced hypocrites.


--
<---->


David Gossman

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : iSeems to me the
> : individual whom must resort to name calling is more likely to be
> : "upset".
>
> I agree with Gossman on this point, and make the observation that I am
> not the party doing the complaining. Gossman is the party upset enough
> to complain.

Thanks for the agreement. Consider that what you agreed to had nothing
to do with complaining - just name calling - something you seem to excel
at.


>
> : > John McCarthy's nuclear paradise consists of 200,000 nuclear reactors,
> : > I believe the figure is 670 for Saddam & Iraq alone. Total cost of
> : > construction is something like $800 trillion. To be paid every 50
> : > years.
> : >
> : > McCarthy considers it a bargain.... A yearly $4000 electric bill for
> : > every average family. Don't you?
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Don't have an answer of your own Mr Nudds?
>
> When Gossman can't respond to an issue, he attempts to change the subject.
>
> I pity him.
>

Please don't pity me Mr. Nudds. It was afterall you whom actually
attempted to change the subject when you couldn't answer my question.
Does that mean we should pity you?

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Like liberals.:) Please Mr Nudds would you kindly point out to all of us
> : where in the constitution our social responsibilities are identified. I
> : see rights and freedoms. Only a socialist like yourself can redefine
> : those into "social responsibilities".
>
> Extremist conservatives like Gossman think that the social
> responsibilities must exist in the U.S. constitution in order to be
> respected and their following expected by others. His is a foolish
> request.

Mr Nudds seems to believe that he should be the one to determine
individual social responsibilities. I do not deny that these exist, just
that the constitutional freedoms take precedence and that it is not Mr
Nudd's place to suggest in any way that they are more important than
individual freedoms.


>
> Social responsibility is defined by the laws of a society,
> specifically by the moral framework from which those laws derive and
> clarify and refine.

And what moral framework is that? Mine is based on Christianity. I do
not require that others be similarly based, only that my individual
rights are recognized and respected. What system of morals is yours
based on? Do you advocate that we all should adopt your personal moral
framework? Please justify your answer or drop this portion of the
thread, it is not very appropriate for sci.environment.


>
> No where in the U.S. constitution does it state that one man may not
> damage another. The fact that extremist conservatives like Gossman
> imply that conduct not prohibited specifically by the constitution is
> acceptable, legally or morally, identifies clearly the source of the
> moral and ethical decline in America.

The idividual rights established in the constitution logically preclude
that any individual has the right to harm another, or is that so
difficult fo you to grasp? PS Your second sentence was not my
implication - I suggest you start speaking for yourself instead of for
others whom you neither understand nor correctly "label". I'm sorry - I
forgot again, Mr Nudds is apparently impaired in this respect.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : I don't believe in either of them. On the other hand you seem to imply
> : that you believe the climate models but not the ecomnomic ones.
>
> I do absolutely. The difference between them is like night and day.
> Economic models are inherently untrustworthy because at their very heart
> is the unpredictable whim of human desire. At the heart of climate
> models is rock solid physics and chemistry.

Let me understand this. Economic models are "untrustworthy" because of
the "whim of human desire" but climate models developed by these very
same humans are somehow not subject to this very same "whim of human
desire"? Try again. As I have suggested before models tend to prove what
the modeler wants to prove because when the model takes into account
enough parameters to get close to the "desired" result the modeler
naturally stops looking for anything that might throw the model off.
That Mr Nudds is human nature, even among scientists.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : As
> : someone whom has taken graduate level climatology and planetary science
> : classes I have a technical basis for not trusing climate models.
>
> To say what? That the climate will warm? Or that there will be
> 2 inches of rain in Yokahama Japan on July 3, 2074?
>
> You jabber as if all aspects of a climate model are equally
> trustworthy.

No I didn't - you just read it that way because it suits your purpose.


>
> The truth of the matter is that the direction and extent of the
> general predictions of the current models all generally agree, and agree
> roughly with observation. Hence the outline of the warming to come is
> trustworthy. The details are however, very much unclear.

Like wether or not that warming will be significant enough to negatively
impact human life?!


>
> This translates into saying that global warming will continue as Co2
> levels rise, but the exact extent and local ramifications of the warming
> are yet to be accurately determined.

Thanks for saying what I have already said. If you can't determine the
extent or type of ramifications how can you justify restricting human
freedom to meet your agenda of CO2 emission reductions, especially if
engineering solutions might be developed?


>
> This is reality... So much for Conservative denialism.

Please Mr Nudds - what have I denied (please quote) about global warming
that you did not just agree with?


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Economic models on the other hand have proven themselves wrong for so
> : long that I doubt a technical basis is needed.
>
> Indeed. Doomsters who are predicting the decline of society should
> steps be taken to reduce Co2 emissions can not be trusted, even when
> expressing opinions in the very areas in which they claim to be experts.

Good. with that out of the way would you kindly provide us with a plan
that would reduce global CO2 emissions to one-sixth current levels
without reducing our standard of living?


>
> I would also like to point out that Cost/Benefit Analysis is based on
> the economic models that you claim are untrustworthy and which have
> proven themselves wrong. Yet, we find conservatives pushing for CBA as
> a measure of all things. A wonderful pie in the sky desire to be sure,
> and an instrument of political patronage to be sure.

Mr Nudds - You again make another mistake. I have never advocated the
use of cost/benefit analysis. Indeed I have written my congressional
representatives indicating my concern with this approach to rulemaking.
Risk models are not reliable enough for this purpose. They can show
relative risk but absolute risk needed for cost benefit analysis is
still out of reach. Because these models do show relative risk I have
alternatively promoted the idea that all EPA (and other regulatory)
actions should be required to have a comprehensive risk analysis
performed and should be required to meet the minimum standard of having
a net positive benefit to human health and safety. If that cannot be
shown to be the case they should not be adopted. Will you grant me that
much? If so I can show you a number of regualtions that I believe would
fail such a test.


>
> : > David Gossman wrote:
> : > : I can see local farmers running alcohol
> : > : stills to run their farm equipment being arrested for not paying the
> : > : carbon tax. It is not to tough to imagine given the outrageous actions
> : > : of our current IRS, BATF, EPA etc.
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > And no doubt UFO's and alien abductions through the very same eyes.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Mr Nudds apparently believes that it is perfectly acceptable for the
> : government (IRS) to seize all of one's personal property and require
> : that you prove yourself innocent to get it back.
>
> I have never been a member of a Republican party and have never
> supported the kind of seizures mentioned by Gossman (above), and which
> were instigated by the Reagan administration.

Then why cast doubt regarding my statement regarding outrageous actions
of the IRS? Sorry Mr Nudds you can't have it both ways.


>
> In fact, I have criticized literally hundreds of mindless conservatives
> for their support for such tactics. Their response was typically to
> accuse me of being a communist or a liberal who was soft on crime.
>
> So once again, we find Gossman grasping at straws in his attempt to
> vilify others. As I said many times, deception, particularly self
> deception, is the hallmark of conservative thought.

Seems to me like you are decieving yourself by attempting to cast me
within your system of name calling clasifications. All you keep doing is
proving yourself wrong.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : As I have also said before you make a major error in
> : atempting to classify me solely as a conservative.
>
> Readers will note that I often prefix the term with the word
> "extremist". This addition is apparently not sufficiently descriptive
> to appease Gossman.

Actually I take the label "extremist" with some pride. If something is
worth doing it is worth doing right and that frquently results in the
label of "extremist". The real question is extreme what? Mr Nudd's
attempts to classify anyone whom disagrees with him is an apparent
hallmark of his self deception.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Did I present a theory? Did I advocate a theory.
>
> Yes. And everyone except you know that you have.

It becomes obvious that this is simply another of your attempts to
change the topic because you can't answer the question.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Yes It could be better or it could be worse.
>
> Or it could be nothing, or beneficial, a net plus to the economy. Why
> don't you answer the question put to you Gossman?

In case you can't read I did. It is you who continue to change the topic
because you can't answer the questions.


>
> : > Perhaps you will think about
> : > why they are being rejected.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Even if such options are ultimately rejected don't you think that they
> : should be closely examined.
>
> How closely something needs to be examined depends on its practicality.
> The technical fix you are proposing has been rejected for the same
> reason that increased reproduction is not the means to improve
> automobile safety.

If it has been scientifically rejected I'm sure that you can provide me
a reference to support your claim rather than this tripe you keep
spouting. As I said before the more you continue to provide meaningless
dribble in your attempt to put down this option the more I think I may
be onto something.

David Gossman

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > My wants are not relevant, and neither are yours. The domestication
> : > of man will continue with our without us. It is a result of increased
> : > contact between people.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Many social scientists (did I say that?) would argue that the type of
> : increased contact you discuss here could or will result in war or other
> : types of violence. Is that your defintition of domestication?
>
> Unless both sides find war a desirable thing, war will not continue
> and both sides will agree to end hostilities and settle their
> differences through negotiation.

What planet did you say you came from?:) You seem to imply that man is
somehow logical about such things. What if only one side finds a war
desirable?


>
> The domestication of man continues...

According to the Nudd's Plan.:)


>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > If Gossman, Charliew and those who have fallen for the "rugged
> : > individualism" scam truly wish to return mankind to the wild, they will
> : > need to reduce world population size. They don't have the guts to admit
> : > this fact to themselves or each other.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Who said anything about returning to the wild?
>
> Every Anarchist, Libertarian and like minded Conservative who laments
> for the good old days where men road horses and wore spurs, and native
> americans were killed for sport.

You really do believe that X-files is a conservative plot, don't you.
Your assertions in areas like this are so wild that you cast doubt on
anything else you say.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : On the other hand
> : supporting individual rights is something I do advocate. I assume from
> : your post that you must find the concept of individual rights rather
> : repulsive.
>
> That depends on the alleged "right" wouldn't it?

Let's start with the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution and move on
to include the other individual rights found in various other
ammendments. Please Mr Nudds since you admit to finding at least some of
these repulsive tell us which ones you would abolish as king.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Personally I suspect that if mankind cannot reduce the growth
> : of the human population on Earth by eventually moving into space that
> : war will be the ultimate solution. Seems to be a human constant.
>
> The adoption of formalized labor systems - capitalism for example -
> will destroy the families of third world nation just as the grubbing for
> money and trinkets has destroyed the family unit in the west.

And your alternative - we wait with strong anticipation that you will
show us THE WAY.


>
> Population size will peak and slowly decline - Current estimates are
> at about 12 billion - well over the carrying capacity of the planet
> given western levels of consumption.

Now that sounds like you just agreed with what I previously said.


>
> : > David Gossman wrote:
> : > : For somebody who seems to support the idea of a world government Mr
> : > : Nudds seems to confuse the US with the UN rather easily.
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Gossman confuses the issue in order to avoid the point. What does it
> : > matter who is pulling the strings. Gossman believes that threat of
> : > deadly force should be used by the world in order to force the sovereign
> : > country of Iraq to follow orders from some external government.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : No. I believe that anyone is justified in disarming a madman whom has
> : already demonstrated his willingness to kill. You on the other hand seem
> : to be the one that is confused.
>
> Does Gossman gives the U.N. license to invade America and arrest
> disarm the country? Or is he the kind of stateist who believes that
> might makes right?

You don't seem to be reading very well. The answer is neither. The UN is
not an organization designed or chartered with protecting individual
rights. You on the other hand continue to advocate that the madman Sadam
be allowed to continue to pose a threat. How do you justify that?


>
> But what about the madmen in other countries who have established
> biological and nuclear weapons production programs? Israel for example
> has both, and is without question run by terrorists, murderers, racists
> and madmen. Why does Gossman exclude the terrorist nation of Israel
> ripe for the disarmament of their weapons of mass destruction?

Can't deal with the question so you try to change the topic again. As
much as I might disagree with Israele policies and some US support for
Israel your labels are again being used to cloud the issue. Can you name
a single instance of Israel using biological weapons against its own
people? Sadam is an idividual with enormous power whom has shown a clear
willingness and desire to aquire weapons of mass destruction for the
purpose of using them on his neighbors, his own people, and others
throughout the world community not for the purpose of deterence or self
defence. Like it or not intent does play a significant role here.


>
> It appears that in Gossmans world police state, the police and the
> beloved of the police have special immunity from the law they impose on
> others.

Mr Nudds your false assertions are getting tiresome. Back up your claims
or drop it.


>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Clearly Gossman and those who seek to dominate the sovereign country of
> : > Iraq are supporters of world government. Yet these are typically the
> : > very same people who whine against such an organization.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : One must conclude from Mr Nudds' comments that because the nazis were a
> : sovereign nation that the genocide they practiced was perfectly
> : acceptable and that the rest of the world should not have interfered.
>
> I believe it is a Internet rule that by raising the issue of NAZI's
> Gossman immediately loses the argument.

Good try Mr Nudds. No ability to logically respond to my assertion so
you come up with more tripe.


>
> To speak to his point, I need only point out that I have expressed no
> opinion on IRAQ at all. I have no position to justify.

You rather clearly advocated leaving Iraq alone. If that is not your
opinion please correct the situation and state your opinion instead of
bringing up an issue and then attempting to duck the questions when you
are challenged.


>
> Gossman and the others conservative extremists who whine about the
> loss of liberty and whine about the establishment of world government -
> meaning world law - are the first to spout rabid invective at Iraq, and
> the first to support military action, invasion, murder, etc.
>
> This is an example of the conservative philosophy of death.
>
> It is also an example of conservative hypocrisy, philosophical
> inconsistency, and general mindlessness.
>
> Sovereignty is paramount, fear the new world order, extremist
> conservatives jabber out of one side of their mouths.... Murder
> Sadam, we reject Iraq's sovereignty must threaten murder and violence to
> protect the world from its evil, they jabber out of the other side of
> their mouths...
>
> Death to socialism they chant from one face - we must commit murder in
> Iraq to protect the greater world community, they proclaim with the
> other.
>
> Mindless two faced hypocrites.

More hype and name calling from someone who denies his own opinions.
Anyone who must resort to such tactics must have a pretty weak arguement
for their own opinion.

David Gossman

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

Richard Tarlo wrote:

>
> scott nudds wrote:
> >> Indeed. Doomsters who are predicting the decline of society should
> >> steps be taken to reduce Co2 emissions can not be trusted, even when
> >> expressing opinions in the very areas in which they claim to be experts.
> >
> David Gossman wrote:
> >Good. with that out of the way would you kindly provide us with a plan
> >that would reduce global CO2 emissions to one-sixth current levels
> >without reducing our standard of living?
>
> The view of those who would reduce the emmisions is based on
> caution and the extreme possible consequences of inaction. In the
> face of this, reducing our standard of living is not in and of itself
> an argument. I wonder what the critics of global warming imagine
> the scientists who make these claims hope to get out of it. Do they
> imagine that these scientists are trying to figure out ways to
> reduce our standard of living, out of some perverse desire
> to see people suffer?

I understand this and my original post simply suggested that given the
negative economic impacts engineering alternatives should be considered
by all (scientists, economists, politicians, and press) involved. I have
yet to see a serious examination of engineering options.
>
> Unfortunately, global warming cannot be considered in isolation.
> For all of his crudeness, Scott is attacking a point of view that
> always seems to try to find the easy way out with as little
> disruption to our current life style, but our current life style
> and habits of consumption are damaging to the environment
> with or without global warming.

While I can agree with you relative to some specifics regarding
environmental damage I do not believe that our current lifestyle is to
blame. So long as Earth has the current or greater level of human
population the wilderness setting that many of us profess to value and
enjoy will be far and few between. There is simply to much demand for
land to grow food, etc. no matter what the lifestyle is.
>
> It is suspicious when people take a stance that so conveniently
> supports the status quo.

Why is it suspicious that people want to preserve their standard of
living and freedoms. I would and do suspect anyone who attacks the
preservation of freedoms without some really good reasons. I realize
that you feel that you may have good reasons, but so long as engineering
alternatives have not been given serious consideration, how can you
convince others of your position?
>
> It is also dangerous to wait until things get out of hand before
> doing anything.

Only if there are no other alternatives which I have yet to see
discussed and only if things will really "get out of hand". This type of
scare tactic, wether the threat is real or not, has long been the cry of
totalitarians and statists whom have inevitably attempted to enslave or
murder large groups of people. I cannot believe that that is your
objective, yet that is the reality of history. How do you suggest
meeting your objective without enslaving, murdering and/or impoverishing
the entire human race? Remember I am asking a real question based on
real historical problems. I am not making accusations.
>
> Richard Tarlo

--

Richard Tarlo

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

David Gossman <gcia...@gci.cncoffice.com> a écrit:

>Richard Tarlo wrote:
>>
>> scott nudds wrote:

>> >> Indeed. Doomsters who are predicting the decline of society should
>> >> steps be taken to reduce Co2 emissions can not be trusted, even when
>> >> expressing opinions in the very areas in which they claim to be experts.
>> >
>> David Gossman wrote:
>> >Good. with that out of the way would you kindly provide us with a plan
>> >that would reduce global CO2 emissions to one-sixth current levels
>> >without reducing our standard of living?
>>

>> The view of those who would reduce the emmisions is based on
>> caution and the extreme possible consequences of inaction. In the
>> face of this, reducing our standard of living is not in and of itself
>> an argument. I wonder what the critics of global warming imagine
>> the scientists who make these claims hope to get out of it. Do they
>> imagine that these scientists are trying to figure out ways to
>> reduce our standard of living, out of some perverse desire
>> to see people suffer?
>
>I understand this and my original post simply suggested that given the
>negative economic impacts engineering alternatives should be considered
>by all (scientists, economists, politicians, and press) involved. I have
>yet to see a serious examination of engineering options.
>>

>> Unfortunately, global warming cannot be considered in isolation.
>> For all of his crudeness, Scott is attacking a point of view that
>> always seems to try to find the easy way out with as little
>> disruption to our current life style, but our current life style
>> and habits of consumption are damaging to the environment
>> with or without global warming.
>
>While I can agree with you relative to some specifics regarding
>environmental damage I do not believe that our current lifestyle is to
>blame. So long as Earth has the current or greater level of human
>population the wilderness setting that many of us profess to value and
>enjoy will be far and few between. There is simply to much demand for
>land to grow food, etc. no matter what the lifestyle is.
>>

..which would get us into a side debate on population control,
but there is a big differenece between feeding people and
having the many other luxuries in our lives. I would not
want to follow that line of thought without more research on
my part however. There are probably some convincing
arguments that the luxuries are a tiny percentage compared
to the daily needs of the vast world population. However,
I do get a pretty pissed off, when piles of junk mail arrives
at my door, thinking that this is the fate of those beautiful
forests and wilderness you mentioned. Is the WalMart
catalog somehow related to feeding the world,s
population?

>> It is suspicious when people take a stance that so conveniently
>> supports the status quo.
>
>Why is it suspicious that people want to preserve their standard of
>living and freedoms. I would and do suspect anyone who attacks the
>preservation of freedoms without some really good reasons. I realize
>that you feel that you may have good reasons, but so long as engineering
>alternatives have not been given serious consideration, how can you
>convince others of your position?

You put the terms" standard of living" and "freedoms" in the same
sentence, as if they are joined at the hip. Standard of living gives
us certain freedoms, and the more money you have, the more
of this particular kind of freedom it gives you. I don't wish to say
more about that until I better comprehend what you are driving at.
What constitues an attack on preservation of freedoms? I don't
want to patronize you by saying that we have responsiblities,
because you know that, so at what point do you draw the line
and say: this is not a responsiblity, it is an attack on my freedom?

As for why I find it suspicious, it is because people have shown
again and again, that they are lazy and will do the easy thing.
In our wisdom and our knowledge of our own limitiations we
have often set up external agents to try to set limits for ourselves.
Philisophically it might not be as satisfying as doing it completely
ourselves, but we need it to survive.

>>
>> It is also dangerous to wait until things get out of hand before
>> doing anything.
>
>Only if there are no other alternatives which I have yet to see
>discussed and only if things will really "get out of hand". This type of

Here, I am completely at odds with you. Some would argue that
things are already out of hand, The point is that it might be too
late by then. The world environment is not like a car that
you can put on the breaks and glide up to the stop light.
These computers give us the illusion that the world is
small, but it is immense.

>scare tactic, wether the threat is real or not, has long been the cry of
>totalitarians and statists whom have inevitably attempted to enslave or
>murder large groups of people. I cannot believe that that is your

It is not a scare tactic. It is a fear tactic, and the criers are the
ones who are afraid, and there are good reasons to be so.
You attribute manipulative motives where it is doubtful that
there are any. I repeat what I said before. What is in it
for the scientists to concoct such ideas? I am not saying
they are right in the scientific sense, but I doubt that they
are trying to mislead.

>objective, yet that is the reality of history. How do you suggest
>meeting your objective without enslaving, murdering and/or impoverishing
>the entire human race? Remember I am asking a real question based on
>real historical problems. I am not making accusations.
>>

I respect your closing remark, and I realize that I have not addressed
some important points in your post, but I do not want to come up with
a hasty knee jerk response to your carefully thought out response.

Richard Tarlo


Scott Nudds

unread,
Dec 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/6/97
to

David Gossman wrote:
: I understand this and my original post simply suggested that given the

: negative economic impacts engineering alternatives should be considered
: by all (scientists, economists, politicians, and press) involved.

They have been, and they have been abandoned as unworthy of consideration.

--
<---->


Scott Nudds

unread,
Dec 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/6/97
to

: > David Gossman wrote:
: > : Like liberals.:) Please Mr Nudds would you kindly point out to all of us
: > : where in the constitution our social responsibilities are identified. I
: > : see rights and freedoms. Only a socialist like yourself can redefine
: > : those into "social responsibilities".

: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Extremist conservatives like Gossman think that the social


: > responsibilities must exist in the U.S. constitution in order to be
: > respected and their following expected by others. His is a foolish
: > request.

David Gossman wrote:
: Mr Nudds seems to believe that he should be the one to determine


: individual social responsibilities. I do not deny that these exist, just
: that the constitutional freedoms take precedence and that it is not Mr
: Nudd's place to suggest in any way that they are more important than
: individual freedoms.

A persons social responsibilities are primarily moral
responsibilities. Gossman doesn't find moral responsibilities in the
U.S. constitution and he insists that the U.S. constitution must take
precedence over morality and social responsibility.

This is an amusing position for an Extremist Conservative like Gossman
to take giving that his fellow extremists typically argue that America
is in rapid decline as a result of rampant immorality and a failure to
adopt traditional moral values.


David Gossman wrote:
: The individual rights established in the constitution logically preclude


: that any individual has the right to harm another, or is that so
: difficult fo you to grasp?

Your claim is not difficult to grasp, it is difficult to believe. No
such provision exists in your constitution. If such a provision did
exist it would have automatically prohibited the ownership of slaves,
which is clearly constitutes abuse. And as we all know, after
committing genocide against Native Americans, the people of the United
States embraced the wonderful world of slavery.


David Gossman wrote:
: Let me understand this. Economic models are "untrustworthy" because of


: the "whim of human desire" but climate models developed by these very
: same humans are somehow not subject to this very same "whim of human
: desire"? Try again.

Gossman proves he can regurgitate the words of others even if he
can't understand them.

What he doesn't understand is that climate models are based on hard
science and not upon the whim of political zealots. Economic models on
the other hand are nothing but thinly disguised political plots that are
designed to prove what the modeler wishes.

Gossman conveniently ignores that trickle down economics hasn't
trickled, he forgets the rosey economic models that predicted balanced
budgets during the 1980's that we now know were Reagans and Stockmans
lies. He forgets the proclamations of the death of the business cycle,
etc, etc, etc...

From Scientific American Jan 94
--------------------------------

Lies, Damned Lies and Models
----------------------------
-Paul Wallich-

According to the economic models that churned away for more than a
year before the House vote, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or
NAFTA, is one or more of the following; a brilliant maneuver that will
weld the continent into a unified economic superpower, a death knell for
the tattered remnants of the U.S. manufacturing sector, a vital boost
for U.S. exporters, a roundabout way of redistributing income from the
poor to the rich, an economic irrelevance.

Some economists' models predict the disappearance of half a million
more U.S. jobs as a result of lower tariffs on Mexican goods; others
predict gains of 100,000 jobs or more, thanks to lower Mexican tariffs
on U.S. products. Along with the jobs, billions of dollars in capital
may flow south in the coming decades - or then again, they may flow
north as Mexico buys U.S. machines for its new factories. Even more
perplexing, these same effects might occur as a result of changes in
trade policy other than NAFTA.

A computer scientist noting such results would immediately think of
the old software adage: "Garbage in, garbage out." Perhaps
surprisingly, both the modelers and their critics agree - often
cheerfully. the presumptions that have been fed into the models, they
say, all too often have little basis in fact.

Among the "little white lies" and "malicious whoppers" (as Paul
Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calls them) are
postulates that employment in each nation will remain precisely
constant, that no manufacturing facilities will move from the U.S. to
Mexico or (in an opposing model) that every new job south of the border
will be counterbalanced by an equivalent one lost north of it.
Researcher's figures for the productivity of the Mexican workers - a
crucial factor in determining just how attractive the country's low
wages really are - vary by a factor of three, depending on whether one
counts all workers - or just those in new factories built by U.S. firms.
And on it goes.

Some observers contend that policy makers should not even bother
sorting out the good economics from the bad in this conflicting muddle.
"Everybody is just making up numbers," says Jagdis Bhagwati of Columbia
University.

Indeed, Alan v. Deardorff of the University of Michigan freely admits
that many of the methods he and his collaborators used to model NAFTA's
effects were "ad hoc." They noticed, for example, that the agreement
appeared to increase return on investment in the U.S. and Mexico, and so
they assumed capital would naturally flow in from elsewhere to take
advantage of higher returns. How much? "We just picked a number" that
seemed pleasable, Deardorff says.

Gary C. Hufbauer and Jeffry J. Schott of the institute for
International Economics in Washington, D.C. took a somewhat more
fact-based approach: they studied what happened when low wage countries
such as Ireland and Spain joined the European Community and extrapolated
to project the possible consequences of Mexico's new attachment to the
U.S. Although their technique cannot distinguish the effects of NAFTA
from from those of other developments that stimulate trade across the
Rio Grand, Schott says, its overall predictions yield an increase of
about 150,000 U.S. jobs over the next decade.

Does that actually mean that unemployment will be a tenth of a
percentage point lower in the year 2000? If economists could forecast
labor markets that accurately, Krugman scoffs, "the Soviet Union never
would have collapsed." Other international events, not to mention the
deficit and and Federal Reserve, will swamp any changes that might be
attributed to NAFTA.

The message of all the dozens of models is more qualitative than
quantitative, Deardorff says. Some predict small positive effects on
employment and national income; others predict small negative ones, but
all predict small effects. (Intuitively, this should have been obvious -
Mexico's economy and population are small compared with those of the
U.S., and tariffs on most products crossing the border are minimal
already.) Knowing that the agreement is essentially insignificant as
far as the U.S. economy goes, Deardorff says, permits policymakers to
concentrate on other issues, such as foreign policy gains or the effects
of the agreement on the Mexican economy.

Then again, changes that economists consider small may loom large to
voters and lawmakers. As Bhagwati points out, the overall level of
employment may hide significant changes in the structure of the U.S.
economy - NAFTA is expected to accelerate both the loss of less skilled
jobs in the U.S. and the creation of higher paying, more sophisticated
ones. Even if the total number of jobs in the U.S. economy does not
change, millions of people will probably be thrown out of work at least
for a while. Those in shrinking industries, such as textiles and
automobiles, will have to find new jobs in such growth sectors as
financial services.

Furthermore, most models suggest that the wages of workers in the
remaining low-paying jobs will fall to bring them closer in line with
international competition. Mexico will undergo structural changes of
even larger scale, as small farmers displaced by competition from
Northern agribusiness look for jobs elsewhere.

These dislocations - and the retraining that will be needed for
workers to cope with them - should be the primary issues in discussions
of NAFTA and its consequences. Bhagwati asserts. Yet they are hardly
being debated at all. Why not? His explanation is that U.S.
polocymakers are simply not prepared to confirm them.

Krugman places some blame on economists as well; they have pandered to
prevailing fads - "We keep putting "competitiveness" in article titles"
as if it meant something, he comments. And oversimplified arguments
have sold well in the public marketplace of ideas whereas more careful
ones sit on the shelf. "NAFTA has made me wonder why we bother trying
to learn anything new in international economics when public debate is
conducted in terms of fallacies that were disproved 150 years ago," he
says.

--
<---->


David Gossman

unread,
Dec 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/8/97
to

Richard Tarlo wrote:
> =

> David Gossman <gcia...@gci.cncoffice.com> a =E9crit:
> =

> >Richard Tarlo wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, global warming cannot be considered in isolation.
> >> For all of his crudeness, Scott is attacking a point of view that
> >> always seems to try to find the easy way out with as little
> >> disruption to our current life style, but our current life style
> >> and habits of consumption are damaging to the environment
> >> with or without global warming.
> >
> >While I can agree with you relative to some specifics regarding

> >environmental damage I do not believe that our current lifestyle is to=

> >blame. So long as Earth has the current or greater level of human

> >population the wilderness setting that many of us profess to value and=

> >enjoy will be far and few between. There is simply to much demand for
> >land to grow food, etc. no matter what the lifestyle is.
> >>

> =

> ..which would get us into a side debate on population control,
> but there is a big differenece between feeding people and
> having the many other luxuries in our lives. I would not
> want to follow that line of thought without more research on
> my part however. There are probably some convincing
> arguments that the luxuries are a tiny percentage compared
> to the daily needs of the vast world population. However,
> I do get a pretty pissed off, when piles of junk mail arrives
> at my door, thinking that this is the fate of those beautiful
> forests and wilderness you mentioned. Is the WalMart
> catalog somehow related to feeding the world,s
> population?

Part of the difficulties in determining this issue is setting a
definition of luxury vs basic need. Most areas of the world would
consider much of what The US's poorest have as amazing luxury. Where you
would define this line might be well above some and well below others -
who decides? who enforces? I assume you have let your local Walmart know
your displeasure by not shopping there and comunicating that fact to
them. That is the power of the free market. Meanwhile would you deny
their right to free speech?
> =

> >> It is suspicious when people take a stance that so conveniently
> >> supports the status quo.
> >
> >Why is it suspicious that people want to preserve their standard of
> >living and freedoms. I would and do suspect anyone who attacks the
> >preservation of freedoms without some really good reasons. I realize

> >that you feel that you may have good reasons, but so long as engineeri=


ng
> >alternatives have not been given serious consideration, how can you
> >convince others of your position?

> =

> You put the terms" standard of living" and "freedoms" in the same
> sentence, as if they are joined at the hip. Standard of living gives
> us certain freedoms, and the more money you have, the more
> of this particular kind of freedom it gives you. I don't wish to say
> more about that until I better comprehend what you are driving at.
> What constitues an attack on preservation of freedoms? I don't
> want to patronize you by saying that we have responsiblities,
> because you know that, so at what point do you draw the line
> and say: this is not a responsiblity, it is an attack on my freedom?

Good question. First I do believe that our "standard of living" and our
historical freedoms are "joined at the hip". There can be no doubt that
the freedoms provided in the US Constitution have provided to a very
large extent (not entirely) the ability of the American people the
opportunities to be productive beyond that found in many other
cultures/areas of the world. As to responsibilities let's consider that
one way to look at these is in three classifications. First we have
responsibilities to not negatively impact the health and safety of other
people. This is an interference in the rights of others. I think most
but not all measures to protect the environment should tend to fall into
this classification. Another category I would classify as "contracted"
responsibilities. This includes everything from financical and bussiness
agreements to marriage and child rearing, all of which include written
or implied contracts which establish responsibilities. A third kind of
responsiblity includes social and religous responsiblities that involve
taking care of the needs of less advantaged individuals. These
responsibilities, I believe, should be entirely voluntary and based on
personal decisions and priorities. This category I would suggest also
includes the preservation of environments not otherwize needed to
protect human health and safety. Of course, our country has gradually
moved toward denying rights of individuals in order to enforce its own
priorities and decision making with respect to this third category. I am
aware that this is done in a "democratic" environment. Nevertheless
denial of rights and freedoms is no different when done by a majority
vote than by a dictator. Only attempts to justify the denial of freedoms
changes.
> =

> As for why I find it suspicious, it is because people have shown
> again and again, that they are lazy and will do the easy thing.
> In our wisdom and our knowledge of our own limitiations we
> have often set up external agents to try to set limits for ourselves.
> Philisophically it might not be as satisfying as doing it completely
> ourselves, but we need it to survive.

> =

I would suggest that historically humans have actually been more
"successful" when they are free. It is true that many - indeed the vast
majority of people will be lazy given the opportunity. This is
udoubtedly the reason for the utter failure of most of our
social/welfare programs. A free market system sets natural limits that
tends to require people to maintain a minimum level of productivity and
civility. It also has the enormous advantage of freeing those
individuals who will go way beyond "limitations" to do just that.
Progress, wether technical, social or environmental generally occurrs
when someone denies the "limitations" that generally restrict others.


> >>
> >> It is also dangerous to wait until things get out of hand before
> >> doing anything.
> >
> >Only if there are no other alternatives which I have yet to see

> >discussed and only if things will really "get out of hand". This type =
of
> =

> Here, I am completely at odds with you. Some would argue that
> things are already out of hand, The point is that it might be too
> late by then. The world environment is not like a car that
> you can put on the breaks and glide up to the stop light.
> These computers give us the illusion that the world is
> small, but it is immense.

I guess the question is can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that mine
or any other individual actions is or will cause harm to someone else.
Our system of justice usually requires that level of proof before
restrictions on individual freedom can be justified. If engineering
alternatives exist to controlling global warming beyond a critical level
I can point out a number of advantages to increasing CO2 levels - I'm
sure you are aware of these.
> =

> >scare tactic, wether the threat is real or not, has long been the cry =
of
> >totalitarians and statists whom have inevitably attempted to enslave o=


r
> >murder large groups of people. I cannot believe that that is your

> =

> It is not a scare tactic. It is a fear tactic, and the criers are the
> ones who are afraid, and there are good reasons to be so.
> You attribute manipulative motives where it is doubtful that
> there are any. I repeat what I said before. What is in it
> for the scientists to concoct such ideas? I am not saying
> they are right in the scientific sense, but I doubt that they
> are trying to mislead.

Despite claims that it never happened I can personally remember when
"scientists" were talking about global cooling. It is the job of
scientists to operate on the edge of discovery, mistakes are made. What
"is in it" is a huge increase in power and control over individual lives
and rights for the political leaders of the world. Perhaps you should be
asking what's in it for them? I think the answer is obvious. Also please
note that the majority of those scientists are on the payroll of some
government entity. Does that impact their objectivity? I would also
point out that the majority of scientist we are discussing have said
that there is a potential problem. Few have discussed solutions and
potential alternatives.
> =

> >objective, yet that is the reality of history. How do you suggest

> >meeting your objective without enslaving, murdering and/or impoverishi=


ng
> >the entire human race? Remember I am asking a real question based on
> >real historical problems. I am not making accusations.
> >>
> I respect your closing remark, and I realize that I have not addressed
> some important points in your post, but I do not want to come up with
> a hasty knee jerk response to your carefully thought out response.

> =

I would also thankyou for the civil discourse. I tend to hold fairly
strong views that, despite attempts of others, don't neatly fall into
attempts to classify. I do enjoy having those views logically challenged
and appreciate your desire to address the issues in a concrete manner.

-- =

David Gossman

unread,
Dec 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/8/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> : > David Gossman wrote:
> : > : Like liberals.:) Please Mr Nudds would you kindly point out to all of us
> : > : where in the constitution our social responsibilities are identified. I
> : > : see rights and freedoms. Only a socialist like yourself can redefine
> : > : those into "social responsibilities".
>
> : Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Extremist conservatives like Gossman think that the social
> : > responsibilities must exist in the U.S. constitution in order to be
> : > respected and their following expected by others. His is a foolish
> : > request.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Mr Nudds seems to believe that he should be the one to determine
> : individual social responsibilities. I do not deny that these exist, just
> : that the constitutional freedoms take precedence and that it is not Mr
> : Nudd's place to suggest in any way that they are more important than
> : individual freedoms.
>
> A persons social responsibilities are primarily moral
> responsibilities. Gossman doesn't find moral responsibilities in the
> U.S. constitution and he insists that the U.S. constitution must take
> precedence over morality and social responsibility.

Yes. Especially over those that Mr Nudds would like to dictate.


>
> This is an amusing position for an Extremist Conservative like Gossman
> to take giving that his fellow extremists typically argue that America
> is in rapid decline as a result of rampant immorality and a failure to
> adopt traditional moral values.

Perhaps you made a mistake in your classification?!:)


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : The individual rights established in the constitution logically preclude
> : that any individual has the right to harm another, or is that so
> : difficult fo you to grasp?
>
> Your claim is not difficult to grasp, it is difficult to believe. No
> such provision exists in your constitution. If such a provision did
> exist it would have automatically prohibited the ownership of slaves,
> which is clearly constitutes abuse. And as we all know, after
> committing genocide against Native Americans, the people of the United
> States embraced the wonderful world of slavery.

Nobody said that the US has always followed these precepts, Jefferson
being a perfect individual example. Nevertheless the goals are the same
- protect human freedoms and restrict the role of government to prevent
abuse.


>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Let me understand this. Economic models are "untrustworthy" because of
> : the "whim of human desire" but climate models developed by these very
> : same humans are somehow not subject to this very same "whim of human
> : desire"? Try again.
>
> Gossman proves he can regurgitate the words of others even if he
> can't understand them.

Can't say something rational so you have to keep up your attempts to put
people down - sad really.


>
> What he doesn't understand is that climate models are based on hard
> science and not upon the whim of political zealots. Economic models on
> the other hand are nothing but thinly disguised political plots that are
> designed to prove what the modeler wishes.

Hard science, I have pointed out before, tends to stop the model
development when the model shows the objective. How do you know, Mr
Nudds, that the modelers haven't done just that? Oh ya the models have
to be right since they agree with you.:)


>
> Gossman conveniently ignores that trickle down economics hasn't
> trickled, he forgets the rosey economic models that predicted balanced
> budgets during the 1980's that we now know were Reagans and Stockmans
> lies. He forgets the proclamations of the death of the business cycle,
> etc, etc, etc...

I said nothing about this nor is it the right news group - as such the
rest is clipped.

--

David Gossman

unread,
Dec 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/8/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : I understand this and my original post simply suggested that given the
> : negative economic impacts engineering alternatives should be considered
> : by all (scientists, economists, politicians, and press) involved.
>
> They have been, and they have been abandoned as unworthy of consideration.
>
Please provide a set of references supporting this contention. That is
afterall what I originally asked for. Somehow if a comprehensive job of
examining the alternetives had been done I suspect you would be rather
broadly publisizing it rather than using one line denials. Its just not
your style Mr Nudds.

Scott Nudds

unread,
Dec 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/14/97
to

: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Gossman doesn't find moral responsibilities in the

: > U.S. constitution and he insists that the U.S. constitution must take
: > precedence over morality and social responsibility.

David Gossman wrote:
: Yes.

Now that we have established that Gossman is fundamentally immoral and
corrupt, this discussion can end.

--
<---->


David Gossman

unread,
Dec 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/14/97
to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> : Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Gossman doesn't find moral responsibilities in the

> : > U.S. constitution and he insists that the U.S. constitution must take
> : > precedence over morality and social responsibility.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Yes.
>
> Now that we have established that Gossman is fundamentally immoral and
> corrupt, this discussion can end.
>
Mr Nudds it is time for you to provide your logic for such a statement
or back off. The fact that I do not find those things in the US
Constitution (and you provided no evidence of such) does not mean I am
immoral in any way. Indeed your unsupported statement to that effect, as
well as the many other rude and unsupported madmouthing instances,
suggests that that may be a feature of your personality. Morality and
social responsibility are something to be indiviually decided, sometimes
based on religous beliefs, sometimes another basis. It is the strength
of this country and of our Constitution that a wide variety of ethical
systems coexist rather than having them dictated to us as you have
indicated on numerous occasion your preference for. Again I will ask you
why you insist on bad mouthing others rather than debate the real
issues? Can your case for your own position be that weak or is this a
fundemental part of your personality - to verbally attack those whom do
not bow to your obvious wisdom?
0 new messages