Greenhouse Skeptic website passes 35,000 hits

[John Daly]

John L. Daly writes

My website, based in Tasmania, giving the skeptic, or dissenter, view of
global warming has today (Monday 3rd Nov) passsed 35,000 hits, most of
these hits coming from North America.

Have a look to see what it's about. The site is entirely independent
and is not funded by any corporate, environmental, or government
interests.

Regards all

John Daly

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

[John McCarthy]

dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) writes:

>
> In article <345D51...@vision.net.au>,

> John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> wrote:
>
> >My website, based in Tasmania, giving the skeptic, or dissenter, view of
> >global warming has today (Monday 3rd Nov) passsed 35,000 hits, most of
> >these hits coming from North America.
>

> Why is it that you and John McCarthy are so impressed with such numbers.
> My puny little photography site racks up about 7,500 hits a day.

I think sites dedicated to issues have small numbers of hits, just as
magazines dedicated to issues have small circulations except when they
are associated with organizations.

It may be that some sites dedicated to issues have very large numbers
of hits. Does anyone know which they are?
--
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.

[Mark Shippey]

Don Baccus (dho...@pacifier.com) wrote:
: In article <345D51...@vision.net.au>,

: John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> wrote:
:
: >My website, based in Tasmania, giving the skeptic, or dissenter, view of
: >global warming has today (Monday 3rd Nov) passsed 35,000 hits, most of
: >these hits coming from North America.
:
: Why is it that you and John McCarthy are so impressed with such numbers.
: My puny little photography site racks up about 7,500 hits a day.

I don't know about the first case, but the 7,500 is because
your "puny little photography site" has some damn good photos.


: --
:
: - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
: Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net

[John McCarthy]

dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) writes:

>
> In article <x4hlnz4...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
> John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:

> >dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) writes:
>
> >> Why is it that you and John McCarthy are so impressed with such numbers.
> >> My puny little photography site racks up about 7,500 hits a day.
>

> >I think sites dedicated to issues have small numbers of hits, just as
> >magazines dedicated to issues have small circulations except when they
> >are associated with organizations.
>

> Well, that may be true. It still doesn't explain why one would want to
> post the figures as though they excite you.
>
> BTW, did you factor out spider hits?

For a site dedicated to issues, 30,000 and 35,000 hits seems to be
pretty good. As to factoring out spider hits, is the following
indicative. Some of the lesser pages on my site have only 10s of
hits. Can I assume the that the spiders give all pages equal
opportunity?

[Don Baccus]

In article <x4hlnz4...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
>dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) writes:

>> Why is it that you and John McCarthy are so impressed with such numbers.
>> My puny little photography site racks up about 7,500 hits a day.

>I think sites dedicated to issues have small numbers of hits, just as
>magazines dedicated to issues have small circulations except when they
>are associated with organizations.

Well, that may be true. It still doesn't explain why one would want to
post the figures as though they excite you.

BTW, did you factor out spider hits?

[Don Baccus]

In article <63oo15$o...@fnord.dfw.net>,
Mark Shippey <kpri...@dfw.dfw.net> wrote:

> I don't know about the first case, but the 7,500 is because
>your "puny little photography site" has some damn good photos.

Thanks. It's "puny", though, in relationship to the main photo.net
site that gets over 400,000 hits a day.

[Sunweb]

Energy is food; is home heating; is driving your car; is your car; is making
widgets in the factory; is the widget; is toilet paper; is the soil at your
feet; is the carrot in the soil; is the sun driven hydrologic cycle; is safe
drinking water; is the stage where fashion models strut; is the lives of the
many organisms and of the millions of years that creates petroleum; is the
top of every jar in your house; is the heat, pressure and time of the earth
concentrating the minerals for the aluminum in your pop can; is the wind
turning the generator that makes my electricity; is the generator; is the
ink on this page; is the sun and material formed in the trees that heat my
house; is the shirts on our backs.
. . . . . . . . .
We know that much energy use directly causes pollution. We know that
fossil fuels were the reason for a war and that most wars are resource
issues. We know that many countries and people in those countries are
being exploited for their natural resources. We know that rising
greenhouse oceans will flood the homes of millions of łthird world˛
peoples. We know that the ill effects of ozone depletion will impact
millions of people who received no benefit from the technologies, do not
know there is a problem and if they did know, could not afford sun glasses
or #25 sunscreen. We know that ecologically there are too many humans.
We know that too many of us using too much means too few of other life
forms and too little for them. We who have know that there is a huge
disparity between the haves and the have nots worldwide. We know that
each of our life styles is making the world minute by minute less livable.
We know that petroleum reserves are measured in decades. We know that
our great, great grandchildren will inherit our nuclear waste. We know
this information and much, much more.
If we saw any other animal that was dying from worldwide epidemics,
starvation, violence within families and communities as well as between
communities; if this highly social animal was abusing and neglecting its
young, raping its females, poisoning its nests, and sickening its members
from stresses of modern adaptation demands; we would know we were
seeing an animal in an ecological crisis. This is us and this is where we
stand.
Ecology is not a spectator sport. We may think that we can sit, watch and
shake our head at the way they are depleting fossil fuels or degrading our
environment or warring for fuel and non-fuel minerals or raping our
sisters and our children. We are they and we can be no less than involved.
And we must bear witness.
. . . . . .
During the coming transition an appreciation of the grieving process and
human defense mechanisms is critically important. For many of the
changes ahead will be a great mourning for the lost dreams fostered by our
culture, the perspectives defined by our religions, the myths spawned by
our economics. . This will be a dangerous time. The mechanism of
displacement scares me. Many of us will search for a place to put our
anger instead of accepting our own involvement, responsibility and need
for mature constraints. Where will our anger be directed? Who will
catch this anger: Arabs, blacks, women, Jews, our children? Or how
about the earth in mistaken rage that she does not provide? Or the
messengers with the bad news?
From "Superman plays with Kryptonite Dice"

[Sunweb]

Well obviously I don't think it is nonsense. I really don't know how to
respond to your statement. As a person who has worked on the front lines
as a psychologist for many years, who has tracked violence across the
world, who has talked with 100s of Catholic sisters who have lived in some
of the most violent regions of the world (not reported in the media), I feel
there is a validity to my statement. It is totally nonsectarian as I am. My
professsional experience crosses all economic classes. And most important
included in this view is a violence that is not physical but it is certainly
violence nonetheless. If however it is nonsense it would be a relief. So
more detailwould be appreciated. John

[Sunweb]

Hugh Davies wrote:
>
> In article <3463ED...@rea-alp.com>, Sunweb <drag...@rea-alp.com> writes:

> >During the coming transition
>
> The 'coming transition'????

Transition is an euphemism. There is a convergence of resource and
population pressure and density that is occurring. It is as old as life itself.
With population growing and arable land not changing significantly. With a
high percentage of farm land only maintainable with large inputs of fossil
fuels (petroleum and natural gas) both direct and indirect. With easily
accessible petroleum and natural gas reserves measured in decades. With
mounting global tensions for all natural resources. With a global economic
system predicated on continual consumption of goods and services much
that is simply unnecessary except to keep the system itself going. With
health care systems stressed to the max because people (especially our
young) stressed to the max. With sustainable numbers of humans
probably being less than our present population. With the economic
system promoting itself via every form of media worldwide. There is a
very high possibility that a most uncomfortable change is at hand.

See Jay's site at http://www.dieoff.com

We are a wonderfully adaptive animal filling ecological niches globally.
We have no natural enemies to keep us in ecological balance except for
ourselves and microbes. Only recently has there been an illusion of
unlimited energy. Unlimited growth is simply impossible. Each of us
knows that life imposes limits. Maturation brings acceptance of limits
that are fought tooth and nail by three year olds, teenagers and midlifers.
Our species faces its own maturation. The necessary choice of limit setting
in our numbers and in our per capita energy use will not be an easy task.

When a person lives around a roar all their life they don't know there is
silence as they slowly go deaf and find it the hard way

[Doug Bashford]

Yep, kpri...@dfw.dfw.net (Mark Shippey) wrote on 5 Nov 1997
about: Re: Greenhouse Skeptic website passes 35,000 hits

>Don Baccus (dho...@pacifier.com) wrote:

>: John Daly wrote:
>: >My website, based in Tasmania, giving the skeptic, or dissenter, view of
>: >global warming has today (Monday 3rd Nov) passsed 35,000 hits, most of
>: >these hits coming from North America.
>:

Don Baccus wrote:
>: Why is it that you and John McCarthy are so impressed with such numbers.

Because they have such whacko ideas. Those numbers are much better than

my stite which stands for Truth, Justice, Scientific Consensus,
Logic and the Truth-seeking skills. And ecological economics...
The General Sustainability formula S = E(PC) if S>1 How boring!

These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
consensus and often even accepted standard logic,
they are used to being rejected
by their peers and by society. However with media stars and political
wonks like Rush Limbaugh, etc. telling these people they are not
screwball company-man sheep nor rich-boy bootlicks, nor mean-spirited,
-- that they are "original thinkers", -- they have a nice exclusive club
where they can feel accepted, perhaps for the first time in their life;
validated. Their defense is extreme self-censorship of all input
information, including mind-filters.

So in a word; McKarthy and this Tasmania site are big fish in a
small pond of dedicated, self-isolated folks. But make no mistake,
there are a number of folks getting rich on the lecture circuit etc
getting rich feeding off those folks, much as was once done with the
Flat-Earth Society. After all, who would pay to here a speaker or
writer who was espousing what could be looked up in a scientific
textbook or other common knowledge, or acceptable behaviour?
But the Flat-Earth Society had very few highly vested interests.
As Hollywood, the political wonks and entertainers well know,
it is the perverted and stimulating mind-candy we are willing to
pay for. Or hate in high-sounding words -- or any brand of cheap
feels-good self-validation -- by definition; propaganda is attractive.

>: >global warming has today passsed 35,000 hits

>: My puny little photography site racks up about 7,500 hits a day.

anti-environmentalist Mark Shippey wrote:
> I don't know about the first case, but the 7,500 is because
>your "puny little photography site" has some damn good photos.

>:
>: - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>

>: Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net

Hmmmmm..... I should check it out!
-- Douglas bashford ät psnw dÖt-cÖm--
- Growthmania consumes what it promises. Ecology delivers.

- We are seeking to increase individuals' wealth and freedom
- rather than "stimulating the economy". We look to abundance
- and wholeness instead of so-called; "economic growth".
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html

[Onar Aam]

>> > These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
>> > consensus and often even accepted standard logic,
>> > they are used to being rejected
>> > by their peers and by society.

Let me just quickly add that if all scientists adhered to the scientific
consensus at all times then we would still be in the dark ages. Great
leaps in science are often initiated by "crackpots." This naturally does
not mean that every dissenter out there is a misrepresented genious.
But the case of the greenhouse theory is very intriguing from a science
theoretic point of view. The fact is that no scientists --
dissenter or consenter -- question 1) the greenhouse effect as a
phenomenon and 2) that it occurs on earth and keeps it some 20-30 degrees
warmer than it otherwise would be, and 3) that an increase in greenhouse
gases will further warm the earth. Under normal scientific conditions
there would really be no talk of dissenters or a consensus, because the
socalled dissenters are so close up to the mainstream. It may not seem like
that because they make wildly different predictions. What most people don't
realize, however, is that this great range of predictions is a reflection
of great uncertainties, not of greatly dissenting views. The factors
involved are so huge that even slight changes in variables can greatly
alter the predictions. The water vapor or cloud budget, for instance, what
would happen if the effects of these are slightly under- or overestimated?
You'd have to start all over again and reassess the science. That's exactly
what is happening right now and has been going on for 10 years. Satellites
taught us that the atmospheric albedo was off by some 5%. Not much you say?
Those 5% amounted to about 20 w/m^2. Considering that the greenhouse effect
the last 20 years was only 2-3 w/m^2 the error was quite significant. When
climate modelling first started out in the eighties everyone thought it was
going to be a simple matter since radiative physics was fairly well
understood. Boy were they in for a shock when they discovered that the
models differed from the observed reality with up to 70 w/m^2! And that was
just for clear sky cases!!! You don't have to be Einstein to realize
that this is a science of HUGE error margins.
Well, over the years this number was reduced. Today the models
differ from reality with between 10 and 30 w/m^2 in clear-sky cases. It's
better, but the error margins are still very large. But the physics is
very far from being a done deal. The structure of the atmosphere is very
patchy and complex and this may affect the radiation budget. Much work
is still needed to fully determine the atmospheric structure and then
properly model it. Prior to the 90s there did not exist a snapshot of
the atmospheric radiation with a good enough resolution and accuracy to
see the individual infrared bands, particularly the important 10-20
micron range. Today such a snapshot exists due to the SPECTRE program,
but the _change_ in the bands due to the enhanced greenhouse effect does
not exist, so a LOT of work is still needed.
But climate science was still in for some nasty surprises. In
1995 scientists reported that experiments show that clouds absorb
20 w/m^2 more sun radiation than previously believed. This means that
the amount of radiation that reaches the ground has been overestimated
by more than 10%, again a HUGE error which offsets previous modelling
results. In 1997 scientists reported that the tropical troposphere was
far drier than previously believed. Yet another error factor that needs
to be accounted for.

All in all, being a skeptic of global warming is easy. It's just a matter
of saying "look at the data!" The interesting thing here is that those
who actually do this are called crackpots and accused of conspiring with
oil and coal companies. THAT's a turn in science which is far more scary
than the global warming itself.

Onar.

[John Daly]

Kirk Johnson wrote:

> > These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
> > consensus and often even accepted standard logic,
> > they are used to being rejected

> > by their peers and by society. However with media stars and political
> > wonks like Rush Limbaugh, etc. telling these people they are not
> > screwball company-man sheep nor rich-boy bootlicks, nor mean-spirited,
> > -- that they are "original thinkers", -- they have a nice exclusive club
> > where they can feel accepted, perhaps for the first time in their life;
> > validated. Their defense is extreme self-censorship of all input
> > information, including mind-filters.
>

> I think this is a very accurate observation. There is a lot of truth there.

John Daly writes:

It's also patronising and characteristic of the petty-intellectual
chardonnay set.

You don't shoot the messenger any more. You just psychoanalyse him.

It's the old Soviet approach to dissent. The dissenter, to dissent
against the discovered `truth' must be either malicious, or mad.

If malicious, send them to the Gulag.

If mad, put them in a psychiatric hospital.

At no time did it occur to the Soviets that the dissenter might actually
have been right, not malicious, and not mad. Indeed, they were the only
sane people around.

So spare us the pseudo-psychobabble and address the issues themselves
like any adult citizen.

John Daly
"Still Waiting For Greenhouse"
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly

[Joe Buck]

>>> > These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
>>> > consensus and often even accepted standard logic,
>>> > they are used to being rejected
>>> > by their peers and by society.

on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>Let me just quickly add that if all scientists adhered to the scientific
>consensus at all times then we would still be in the dark ages. Great
>leaps in science are often initiated by "crackpots."

Right. However, great leaps in science are rarely made by people whose
loyalties have been bought. Many (not all) of the anti-environmentalist
"skeptics" make big money from their skepticism.

>All in all, being a skeptic of global warming is easy. It's just a matter
>of saying "look at the data!"

Sorry, the majority of scientists that believe global warming is a threat
are also looking at the data. Your points about the inaccuracies of
climate models aren't as relevant as you think they are -- they do make
it clear that no one can predict with accuracy how much warming we will
see, but the notion that you can double the CO2 in the atmosphere, or
triple it, and not have a serious effect is too big a risk to take.
Everyone agrees on the general direction of the change that will be
produced; we don't know if we'll get a positive feedback or a negative
feedback effect.

> The interesting thing here is that those
>who actually do this are called crackpots and accused of conspiring with
>oil and coal companies.

The reason why they are accused of this is that their money has been followed.
Surprise, surprise: those whose funding comes from oil and coal companies
think what the oil and coal companies tell them to think.

Yes, I know that there are honest dissenters. But the issue is one of
risk. You propose to ride a raft down a river. The majority of people
in the area say that there's a big waterfall downstream and you risk death
if you proceed. A few dissenters say that it's a little waterfall,
harmess to ride over. Now none of these folks have seen the waterfall
directly, they are all basing their opinions on second-hand information,
hearing the sound from a distance, rumors from the next village, whatever.
But the majority of the villagers are convinced that the waterfall
is very dangerous. So, do you proceed because *maybe* the majority is wrong?

The point is that even in the presence of dissent, we can't take the risk.
Even if the dissenters are correct, cutting back on CO2 isn't going to
cause a disaster (nonsense from the economists who predicted nine of the
last three recessions notwithstanding). If the dissenters are wrong,
*not* cutting back on CO2 will be a disaster.

THAT's a turn in science which is far more scary
>than the global warming itself.

You're saying that it's scary that people are *accused* of selling out
in this way. What's really scary is that increasingly, people *are*
selling out in this way. Governments are cutting back on R&D,
corporations are taking a larger share, and the corporations demand
that the recipients of the grants toe the line. Scientific independence
is going out the window.

--
-- Joe Buck http://www.synopsys.com/pubs/research/people/jbuck.html
If you thought flashing ads on Web sites were annoying, wait till the Web
and your operating system are "seamlessly integrated" and watch the
pulsating promotional crud spill out over your desktop. -- Scott Rosenburg

[Rich Puchalsky]

From: John Daly <da...@vision.net.au>

>It's the old Soviet approach to dissent. The dissenter, to dissent
>against the discovered `truth' must be either malicious, or mad.
>
>If malicious, send them to the Gulag.
>
>If mad, put them in a psychiatric hospital.

My heart bleeds for all of Daly's fellow Dittoheads currently languishing
in the Gulag or in psychiatric hospitals. Why, one might never guess that
this discussion in happening within societies where one can spout opinions
at will. But of course Daly can't seem to resist the thrill he
thinks he'll get by proclaiming himself a victim of society.

Onar Aam (on...@hsr.no) wrote:
: Let me just quickly add that if all scientists adhered to the scientific

: consensus at all times then we would still be in the dark ages. Great
: leaps in science are often initiated by "crackpots."

They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Scientists
in sci.env have already opined on which category Aam's comments fall in to.

Oh, but I forgot, they must be part of the conspiracy. Rev up the Blak
Helikopters, guys.

[Rich Weyand]

In article <667t1f$ghm$1...@news.hal-pc.org> char...@hal-pc.org (char...@hal-pc.org) writes:

>In fact, many of the people who quickly choose the ad hominem
>attack as a tactic, are in fact sheep who can't think for
>themselves. They already have their minds made up, for
>whatever reason, and attempts to tell them that there are
>huge uncertainties involved are falling on deaf ears. In
>effect, these individuals wouldn't know science or logic if
>it fell on them (which is often has).

>In my experience, most people have this warm cozy feeling of
>certainty in their daily lives. They actually think that
>they know most things around them with certainty, and have
>control of most of the variables that they understand. These
>people are very foolish, for neither concept applies. Thus,
>when you present them with uncertainty and things beyond
>their control, their minds can't handle it.

One of the smartest people I know has a bumper sticker on his
car which reads simply:

Doubt is the beginning of wisdom.

A large group of people, the majority I think, find it difficult
to comprehend that people of good conscience and sound intellect,
when presented with the same set of facts, can in fact come to
different conclusions. How much more disparity of opinion can
we expect when the facts themselves are hard to measure, and
harder still to interpret, as in global warming? (Watch. That
statement alone will draw flames from both sides!) But the
response to the doubter always is, if you do not agree with me,
you must be stupid, mad, malicious, a denialist, a wacko, a paid
hack, ....

I don't doubt that mankind can have an effect on the environment.
I do doubt that we know enough yet to say what that is or how it
works, much less what action to take to prevent/forestall/avoid
it. We may just make the problem worse. I agree that study is
needed. Funding that study without regard to the prior expressed
opinions of the researchers might be nice, too.

I won't pretend to wisdom, but I doubt the strongest statements
made on global warming by both sides of the issue.

Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. ---+_______:_ |Rich Weyand
Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics
Comm Consultants | ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics
wey...@mcs.com | http://www.mcs.net/~weyand/ |wey...@mcs.com

[Onar Aam]

>Right. However, great leaps in science are rarely made by people whose
>loyalties have been bought. Many (not all) of the anti-environmentalist
>"skeptics" make big money from their skepticism.

I'm glad you feel that way because I agree. Global Warming is one of the
greatest industries in modern science. Last year Al Gore donated 2
*billion* dollars to climate change research. That's a whole lot of money,
especially considering that they were divided among a mere 2000 scientists.
That's a million dollars each. Using your logic the scientists are telling
Al Gore -- which is an apocalyptic environmentalist -- exactly what he
wants to hear. Now, either you have to admit that accusing scientists of
being bought falls back on ALL scientists, not just the skeptics, or we
can ignore the money for a second and start looking at the arguments. If
the skeptics' arguments are so bogus then they should be easy to rip
apart.

>Sorry, the majority of scientists that believe global warming is a threat
>are also looking at the data.

Yes, and the majority of the scientists say exactly the same thing: we
don't know. In 20 years we'll know more. However, in the Policy Makers
Summary most of those uncertainties that you find in the report have
been surgically removed. It even contains those famous words "the
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate
change."

> Your points about the inaccuracies of
>climate models aren't as relevant as you think they are -- they do make
>it clear that no one can predict with accuracy how much warming we will
>see, but the notion that you can double the CO2 in the atmosphere, or
>triple it, and not have a serious effect is too big a risk to take.

One of the uncertainties is whether we will ever see a doubling.
Completely on its own nature has started to counteract the rising levels
of CO2. In the early 70's the uptake to the atmosphere was about 75%. Now
the uptake has shrunk to 50%, and there is nothing that indicates that
this trend will not continue. With current growth, CO2 concentration will
double (relative to pre-industrial levels) in about 100 years. Relative
to 1990 level it will double in 250 years if the current trend
continues.

>Everyone agrees on the general direction of the change that will be
>produced;

Not everyone. If it turns out that the sun is the major component in
climate change then we can expect a cooling trend in the next century.
As of today the sun-theory is the one which best fits the data.

>But the issue is one of
>risk. You propose to ride a raft down a river. The majority of people
>in the area say that there's a big waterfall downstream and you risk death
>if you proceed. A few dissenters say that it's a little waterfall,
>harmess to ride over. Now none of these folks have seen the waterfall
>directly, they are all basing their opinions on second-hand information,
>hearing the sound from a distance, rumors from the next village, whatever.
>But the majority of the villagers are convinced that the waterfall
>is very dangerous. So, do you proceed because *maybe* the majority is wrong?

The majority of villagers also say that I can ride the raft for
2 hours before I have to get off it. Those extra 2 hours allows the
villagers to learn more about the size of the waterfall. The question then
is: what on earth is the advantage of getting off the raft now when there
won't be any real danger until 3-4 hours later? Shouldn't we use that
extra time to find out more about the potential danger before we start
a costly rescue operation?

>Even if the dissenters are correct, cutting back on CO2 isn't going to
>cause a disaster

The experts disagree on this. They do however agree that the proposed
cuttings in CO2 emissions is not going to have ANY impact on climate.
*IF* there really is a disaster ahead of us as some scientists guess,
then CO2 emissions must be reduced by some 60-80% in order to have any
effect. If you're saying that that will have no negative effects on the
economy then you're pretty naive. That's why waiting 20 years won't
hurt anything.

>You're saying that it's scary that people are *accused* of selling out
>in this way. What's really scary is that increasingly, people *are*
>selling out in this way.

Yes, 2 billion of the tax payers' money can certainly be tempting.

Onar.

[Onar Aam]

>Onar Aam (on...@hsr.no) wrote:
>: Let me just quickly add that if all scientists adhered to the scientific
>: consensus at all times then we would still be in the dark ages. Great
>: leaps in science are often initiated by "crackpots."
>
>They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Scientists
>in sci.env have already opined on which category Aam's comments fall in to.
>
>Oh, but I forgot, they must be part of the conspiracy. Rev up the Blak
>Helikopters, guys.

Isn't it interesting how you chose to ignore a long list of uncertainties
and turn to ad hominem attacks instead? If that list was so laughable
then please be my guest to rip them to pieces. I'm confident that you can't
because the factors I listed are based on peer-reviewed work and
research by renowned scientists. In fact, none of the researchers I
referred to belong to the group of skeptics that are so vigorously attacked
by certain people in this group.

Onar.

[char...@hal-pc.org]

In article <667he1$83o$2...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no (Onar

In fact, many of the people who quickly choose the ad hominem

attack as a tactic, are in fact sheep who can't think for
themselves. They already have their minds made up, for
whatever reason, and attempts to tell them that there are
huge uncertainties involved are falling on deaf ears. In
effect, these individuals wouldn't know science or logic if
it fell on them (which is often has).

In my experience, most people have this warm cozy feeling of
certainty in their daily lives. They actually think that
they know most things around them with certainty, and have
control of most of the variables that they understand. These
people are very foolish, for neither concept applies. Thus,
when you present them with uncertainty and things beyond
their control, their minds can't handle it.

Isn't human nature grand?

[Harold]

On 4 Dec 1997 18:49:03 GMT, jb...@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) wrote:

>on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>Let me just quickly add that if all scientists adhered to the scientific
>>consensus at all times then we would still be in the dark ages. Great
>>leaps in science are often initiated by "crackpots."
>

>Right. However, great leaps in science are rarely made by people whose
>loyalties have been bought. Many (not all) of the anti-environmentalist
>"skeptics" make big money from their skepticism.

Many (not all) of the global warming enthusiasts make big money from
their enthusiasm.

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge
authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of
duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." Thomas H. Huxley

>>All in all, being a skeptic of global warming is easy. It's just a matter
>>of saying "look at the data!"

>Sorry, the majority of scientists that believe global warming is a threat

>are also looking at the data.

What data are they looking at? Satellite data from 1979 to today
shows no warming at all. For many reason, satellite data would be
expected to be more accurate.

>Your points about the inaccuracies of
>climate models aren't as relevant as you think they are -- they do make
>it clear that no one can predict with accuracy how much warming we will
>see, but the notion that you can double the CO2 in the atmosphere, or
>triple it, and not have a serious effect is too big a risk to take.

Don't be silly, of course the model inaccuracies are relevant. The
whole risk you see is defined by the models! If the models are
inaccurate, then there may be no risk!

>Everyone agrees on the general direction of the change that will be

>produced; we don't know if we'll get a positive feedback or a negative
>feedback effect.

Everybody does not even believe there has been a change, how are we
going to agree on the "general direction"?

>
>> The interesting thing here is that those
>>who actually do this are called crackpots and accused of conspiring with
>>oil and coal companies.

>The reason why they are accused of this is that their money has been followed.
>Surprise, surprise: those whose funding comes from oil and coal companies
>think what the oil and coal companies tell them to think.

Then, to extend your reasoning, you appear to be saying that those who
get their funding from the Sierra CLub or the Audubon Society must be
told what to think by their funders, correct? Or do you think one
group would be affected by the source of their funds, while the other
would not?

>Yes, I know that there are honest dissenters. But the issue is one of

>risk. You propose to ride a raft down a river. The majority of people
>in the area say that there's a big waterfall downstream and you risk death
>if you proceed. A few dissenters say that it's a little waterfall,
>harmess to ride over. Now none of these folks have seen the waterfall
>directly, they are all basing their opinions on second-hand information,
>hearing the sound from a distance, rumors from the next village, whatever.
>But the majority of the villagers are convinced that the waterfall
>is very dangerous. So, do you proceed because *maybe* the majority is wrong?

No, you wait to take action until you have reliable information.
Allowing CO2 emission to continue will not be a disaster. Say the
IPPC report is correct, they forecast a 1 to 3 C rise in one century.
This is not an emergency.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be
something like AIDS."
- Earth First newsletter, December 1989,
Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

[Peter]

In article <667gql$83o$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no says...

>Now, either you have to admit that accusing scientists of
>being bought falls back on ALL scientists, not just the skeptics, or we
>can ignore the money for a second and start looking at the arguments. If
>the skeptics' arguments are so bogus then they should be easy to rip
>apart.

It does appear to me that global warming is so politicized and the research so
much funded by people with economic interests to protect, that any
conclusion--believer or skeptic--has to be looked at with suspicion.

>>Sorry, the majority of scientists that believe global warming is a threat
>>are also looking at the data.
>

>Yes, and the majority of the scientists say exactly the same thing: we
>don't know. In 20 years we'll know more. However, in the Policy Makers
>Summary most of those uncertainties that you find in the report have
>been surgically removed. It even contains those famous words "the
>balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate
>change."

I think it's quite accurate to say we don't know. One point you seem to be
glossing over is, if the required CO2 emissions to head off disaster would be
economically disastrous today, they will be just as much so (probably more) in
twenty years.

>>But the issue is one of
>>risk. You propose to ride a raft down a river. The majority of people
>>in the area say that there's a big waterfall downstream and you risk death
>>if you proceed. A few dissenters say that it's a little waterfall,
>>harmess to ride over. Now none of these folks have seen the waterfall
>>directly, they are all basing their opinions on second-hand information,
>>hearing the sound from a distance, rumors from the next village, whatever.
>>But the majority of the villagers are convinced that the waterfall
>>is very dangerous. So, do you proceed because *maybe* the majority is wrong?
>
>

>The majority of villagers also say that I can ride the raft for
>2 hours before I have to get off it. Those extra 2 hours allows the
>villagers to learn more about the size of the waterfall. The question then
>is: what on earth is the advantage of getting off the raft now when there
>won't be any real danger until 3-4 hours later? Shouldn't we use that
>extra time to find out more about the potential danger before we start
>a costly rescue operation?

As I said above, you have a point here. However, if we wait and do find we're
headed for disaster, we'll have more of a crash program in twenty years than we
would now.

>>Even if the dissenters are correct, cutting back on CO2 isn't going to
>>cause a disaster
>
>The experts disagree on this. They do however agree that the proposed
>cuttings in CO2 emissions is not going to have ANY impact on climate.
>*IF* there really is a disaster ahead of us as some scientists guess,
>then CO2 emissions must be reduced by some 60-80% in order to have any
>effect. If you're saying that that will have no negative effects on the
>economy then you're pretty naive. That's why waiting 20 years won't
>hurt anything.

Personally, I'm for energy conservation and lifestyle simplicity for a number of
reasons, the possibility of global warming being only one. The best I can think
of now is to encourage voluntary conservation and reduction of consumption. If
the people go that way, the Corporate State will follow. As far as mandatory
government measures go, they would be oppressive in some ways. If we wait twnty
years and then decide to cut emissions, they will be more oppressive.

[edsa...@edsanders.com]

Onar Aam <on...@hsr.no> wrote in article <666cvm$1bd$1...@snipp.uninett.no>...

>
> All in all, being a skeptic of global warming is easy. It's just a matter

> of saying "look at the data!" The interesting thing here is that those

> who actually do this are called crackpots and accused of conspiring with

> oil and coal companies. THAT's a turn in science which is far more scary

> than the global warming itself.

Take a look at the global warming section of my web site for Rachel
Carson's view on things. A REAL eye opener!

http://www.edsanders.com/global/warming.htm

Ed

[Brent A. Peterson]

edsa...@edsanders.com wrote:
>

> Take a look at the global warming section of my web site for Rachel
> Carson's view on things. A REAL eye opener!
>
> http://www.edsanders.com/global/warming.htm

You forgot the 9 planet alignment that if memory
serves come on the psyhic predictions of the end
of the world, May 5th 2000. :)

Not to mention the alignment that was supposed
to be visiable this week, although there have
been nothing but clouds to look at where
I am :(

But seriously it is odd how predictions, measurements
and studies of gobal warming/cooling from before the
days of the 'greenhouse effect' and the huge amounts
of emmissions that are supposed to cause it not only
exist, but have been forgotten.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Onar Aam (on...@hsr.no) wrote:
: Isn't it interesting how you chose to ignore a long list of uncertainties

: and turn to ad hominem attacks instead? If that list was so laughable
: then please be my guest to rip them to pieces.

Do you really want me to search Dejanews to find your recent posts where
you thought that the CO2 moecule radiated as a blackbody? It's not the
science that I'm challenging, it's your grasp of it.

: I'm confident that you can't

: because the factors I listed are based on peer-reviewed work and
: research by renowned scientists. In fact, none of the researchers I
: referred to belong to the group of skeptics that are so vigorously attacked
: by certain people in this group.

You are trying the exact same tactic that creationsits use: seize on any
legitimate disagreement between scientists in an exciting, changing field
to claim that they used to be "wrong" and that we therefore don't know
anything. Global climate change theory is based on very simple physics
(discovered in the 19th century, by the way); we know very well that a
rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause climate to change
-- it must because of radiative balance. The tricky part is in figuring
out exactly *how* it will change. Your efforts to confuse the issue are
both specious and intellectually shabby.

: Onar.

--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html

[char...@hal-pc.org]

In article <667gql$83o$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no (Onar

Aam) wrote:
>
>
>>Right. However, great leaps in science are rarely made by
people whose
>>loyalties have been bought. Many (not all) of the
anti-environmentalist
>>"skeptics" make big money from their skepticism.

This is "rich". Certainly, if you can label skeptics in some
way, you can discredit them. When can guys like this get it
through their thick heads that some skeptics just don't
believe the current hype, particularly since guys like Al
Gore are involved?

Why would I be so cynical? Let's see. About 4 years ago,
there was a big push to tax the hell out of hydrocarbons
based on the theory that CO2 emissions were bad. The public
cried out, and the tax failed. Now, there are continuing
political attempts to find a one-sided scientific "consensus"
to convince people that the tax is actually needed. Gee,
there are several observations that a supposedly sane person
could make in this regard:

1) If it took 150 years to get to this point (e.g., the
industrial revolution with all its CO2 emissions), why must
we make a decision about CO2 emissions while Al Gore is in
office?

2) Why don't PhD weathermen (e.g., Neil Frank in the Houston
area) go along with the "plan"? After all, many guys like
Mr. Frank recently went to Washington, D.C., to hear Mr.
Clinton's speech about global warming, and apparently came
away unimpressed. Since these guys are in the weather and
climate business, it would seem that they would be "carrying
the banner" of global warming. My observation is that they
are not on this bandwagon.

3) Personal observation implies that things haven't gotten
noticeably worse.

4) It should be a highly non-trivial exercise to measure the
mean temperature of the earth, particularly since all
observation stations were located on land until approximately
1970 (when weather satellites became available). Since 70%
of the earth's surface is covered by water, it should be
obvious that we don't have temperature records for most of
this planet's surface. Why don't the enviros consider this?

Indeed, it is obvious that global warming skeptics should be
labelled! ;-)

[Dave Stone]

John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> wrotf:

>
>It's also patronising and characteristic of the petty-intellectual
>chardonnay set.
>
>You don't shoot the messenger any more. You just psychoanalyse him.
>

>It's the old Soviet approach to dissent. The dissenter, to dissent
>against the discovered `truth' must be either malicious, or mad.
>
>If malicious, send them to the Gulag.
>
>If mad, put them in a psychiatric hospital.
>

>At no time did it occur to the Soviets that the dissenter might actually
>have been right, not malicious, and not mad. Indeed, they were the only
>sane people around.
>
>So spare us the pseudo-psychobabble and address the issues themselves
>like any adult citizen.
>
>John Daly
>"Still Waiting For Greenhouse"
>http://www.vision.net.au/~daly

Daly,
You are a stupid, ignorant asshole who wouldn't know the truth if it
reached up and bit you. You totally ignore science and listen to the
BULLSHIT that the Limbots spout. Try opening your eyes, you stupid
SHIT!!

Dave Stone

[Steven Hales]

Dave Stone wrote in message <34895f37...@news.atl.mindspring.com>...

The above poster seems to have mastered the invective without content. Good
old Carl Lydick at least used the vernacular profane to make cogent points
but greenbots, like Mr. Stone, seem to be able only to debate by volume.

At the other end of the debate (the civilized one) the real scientists (some
of them on this newsgroup) have confused dissent with the majority opinion
on climate change with an anti-science attitude. There are those who even
suggest that the arguments against are equivalent to arguing for creationism
or for the theory of a young earth, whose proponents seize on past science
folly as proof of present science incompetence. While there may be some
justification for this defensive posture the real dissenters bring up good
points. Balling emphasizes the urban heat island effect as evidence of
skewing the land based temperature record (something he feels is impossible
to correct for) as well as the ability of ships today to largely avoid foul
weather when they measure SSTs on their voyages and the resulting skewness
of these data. Michaels emphasizes the lack of warming in the Southern
Hemisphere (because sulfate aerosols are not largely present there) as
evidence that factors other than aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere may be
suppressing the climate forcing from GHG accumulation. Lindzen emphasizes a
suspected drying of the upper atmosphere (now measured by NASA) as evidence
of the lack of a strong water vapor feedback. Douglas Hoyt and Sally
Balainus emphasize the role of the sun in climate change. Vincent Gray
notes that the IPCC has overestimated the rate of emissions growth as it
follows from an overly optimistic economic growth outlook in the developed
and in the developing world.

Disagreement with these climate experts will range, from accusations of
financial support from vested interests and invectives against their
temerity to oppose the majority, to a balanced consideration of their
hypotheses and theories. I have yet to see, in this newsgroup, fair
treatment for any of these scientists. I wonder who is really anti-science
here.

Regards,

Steve

[Rheuddog]

Dave,

You are so progressive and rational! Your mom must be real proud. I
listened to some dude on NPR Science Friday yesterday and he said point
blank in response to a "mad skeptic" caller, "yes, there are many
uncertainties within our theories but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act
now to avert future disasters."

I am not a Limbaugh-Conspiracy Theorist. Yes, I listen to NPR, read the
New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly, blah, blah, blah. There are
many 'scientists' who have noted impressive evidence against this Global
Warming Religion. Most notably, the MIT professor (forget his name)
who was recently profiled in the NYT of all places.

On said NPR program, they spent 20 minutes discussing cows and methane
gases. Yes, they were proposing various ways to cut back on our
dependence on cows: cows are one of the top producers of this greenhouse
gas, ya know.

This is lunacy, Dave. Relax a little and study the correlation between
the earth's climate and the sun's magnetic fluctuations. Is it not
possible that the increase in carbon is responsible for the documented
increase in foliage density, thereby counteracting the negative effects?

I am contemplating a conversion to Conspiracy Theorist because none of
these contrary voices are discussed in the 'mainstream' except on
occaision or in the Wall Streest Journal.

The earth's temp has gone down by 1 degree in the last 20 years.
Explain this, please.

With Love,

Bryan

[John Alway]

Dave Stone wrote:
>
> John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> wrotf:
>
> >
> >It's also patronising and characteristic of the petty-intellectual
> >chardonnay set.
> >
> >You don't shoot the messenger any more. You just psychoanalyse him.
> >
> >It's the old Soviet approach to dissent. The dissenter, to dissent
> >against the discovered `truth' must be either malicious, or mad.
> >
> >If malicious, send them to the Gulag.
> >
> >If mad, put them in a psychiatric hospital.
> >
> >At no time did it occur to the Soviets that the dissenter might actually
> >have been right, not malicious, and not mad. Indeed, they were the only
> >sane people around.
> >
> >So spare us the pseudo-psychobabble and address the issues themselves
> >like any adult citizen.
> >
> >John Daly
> >"Still Waiting For Greenhouse"
> >http://www.vision.net.au/~daly

> Daly,
> You are a stupid, ignorant asshole who wouldn't know the truth if it
> reached up and bit you. You totally ignore science and listen to the
> BULLSHIT that the Limbots spout. Try opening your eyes, you stupid
> SHIT!!

Ah, the vituperations and mendacity of a dogmatic
environmentalist, or is that redundant? All bark, no
fact.

The science is on his web site, for goodness sakes.
And why don't you open your eyes and look at what
scientists are saying?

I'd like to thank John Daly for his web site. I
discovered it some time ago and it has served me well.

...John

[Rich Puchalsky]

Steven Hales (sha...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: At the other end of the debate (the civilized one) the real scientists (some

: of them on this newsgroup) have confused dissent with the majority opinion
: on climate change with an anti-science attitude. There are those who even
: suggest that the arguments against are equivalent to arguing for creationism
: or for the theory of a young earth, whose proponents seize on past science
: folly as proof of present science incompetence.

Past science "folly"? No creationist has, to my knowledge, brought up any
examples of actual folly. They simply bring up instances where new knowledge
has been discovered, and pretend that this means older science was folly.

: While there may be some

: justification for this defensive posture the real dissenters bring up good

: points. Balling emphasizes [...]

But the point is that the people on these newsgroups are not the real
dissenters. The "sceptics" here are almost uniformly ignorant. In fact,
they are so ignorant, and often so ideologically motivated, that they
don't even realize that they are ignorant.

The real scientists who dissent from consensus scientific opinion on global
climate change may or may not have a valid case; the evidence is against
them at this point, but dramatic changes in scientific knowledge have
occured before. However, few or none of their proponents here are capable
of representing their evidence or argument adequately.

: I have yet to see, in this newsgroup, fair

: treatment for any of these scientists. I wonder who is really anti-science
: here.

Bah. Scientific merit has never been and never will be determined by popular
debate, including most specifically by Usenet postings. These scientists will
get fair treatment as knowledge advances. Based on our current
evidence, and based on some procedurally shoddy work they've done, I think
it probable that future scientists will see them as Lamarcks rather than
Galileos. Of course, I could be wrong. But I do know that no Dittoheads
can make a difference one way or the other.

[Onar Aam]

>Do you really want me to search Dejanews to find your recent posts where
>you thought that the CO2 moecule radiated as a blackbody? It's not the
>science that I'm challenging, it's your grasp of it.

By all means, be my guest. I have nothing to hide. I raised legitimate
questions which were answered in civilized manners, and I was mostly
satisfied with those answers although I still believe as much as 5-10%
of the absorbed energy may be lost in radiative re-adjustment. The
exercise was very useful because it opened up a new set of interesting
questions, because the argument of radiative readjustment can be
applied on a macroscopic level, namely on inhomogenities in the
atmosphere. Research shows that water vapor, the most important
greenhouse gas is distributed in a patchy fashion throughout the
atmosphere. The level of CO2 and methane also varies quite a deal. This
means that on a macroscopic level the atmosphere is non-equilibrial, i.e.
it has a rugged concentration distribution. Now, as far as I know the
models treat water vapor concentration as _homogenous_, with smooth
transitions. From the discussions on radiative re-adjustment we saw that
a non-homogenous body will always lose more heat than a homogenous one.
Hence, we know that the smoothing effect of models leads to an
overestimated heating, but we don't know how much. It may vary from
zilch to significant.

>You are trying the exact same tactic that creationsits use: seize on any
>legitimate disagreement between scientists in an exciting, changing field
>to claim that they used to be "wrong" and that we therefore don't know
>anything.

Look, instead of this ad hominom line of attack why don't you after the
ball? Explain why satellite data is showing only a third of the warming
that the models predict.

>Global climate change theory is based on very simple physics
>(discovered in the 19th century, by the way)

Yes, and that's exactly why modelers in the early 80s thought that
climate modelling would be peanuts. They were therefore very surprised
when they learned that the models differed from reality with up to
70 w/m^2 for clear sky scenarios. Today the difference has been reduced,
but they still differ with 10-30 w/m^2 for clear sky scenarios. And this
does not even deal with clouds. Measurements of water vapor distribution
shows that it may as hard to model as clouds. Lesson: climate modelling is
a lot more complex than previously believed despite being built on simple
physics.

>we know very well that a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will
>cause climate to change -- it must because of radiative balance. The
>tricky part is in figuring out exactly *how* it will change.

Yes, that is a very good summary of the situation. So far the models show
that we can exepct dramatic warming, whereas the empirical data -- real
world observations -- imply insignificant greenhouse warming.

Onar.

[Jay Hanson]

John Alway wrote in message <3489AB...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...

> The science is on his web site, for goodness sakes.
> And why don't you open your eyes and look at what
> scientists are saying?

WORLD SCIENTISTS' CALL FOR ACTION AT THE KYOTO CLIMATE SUMMIT

Five years ago, in the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity,
1600 of the world's senior scientists sounded an unprecedented
warning:

Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible
damage on the environment and on critical resources. If
not checked, many of our current practices put at serious
risk the future that we wish for human society and the
plant and animal kingdoms.

Addressed to political, industrial, religious, and scientific
leaders, the Warning demonstrated that the scientific community
had reached a consensus that grave threats imperil the future of
humanity and the global environment. However, over four years
have passed, and progress has been woefully inadequate. Some of
the most serious problems have worsened. Invaluable time has been
squandered because so few leaders have risen to the challenge.

The December 1997 Climate Summit in Kyoto, Japan, presents a
unique opportunity. The world's political leaders can demonstrate
a new commitment to the protection of the environment. The goal
is to strengthen the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change
by agreeing to effective controls on human practices affecting
climate. This they can and must do, primarily by augmenting the
Convention's voluntary measures with legally binding commitments
to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases
significantly below 1990 levels in accordance with a near-term
timetable.

Over time, developing nations must also be engaged in limiting
their emissions. Developed and developing nations must cooperate
to mitigate climatic disruption.

The biosphere is a seamless web. Completion of an effective
treaty at Kyoto would address one of the most serious threats to
the planet and to future generations. It would set a landmark
precedent for addressing other grave environmental threats, many
linked to climate change. It would demonstrate that the world's
leaders have now recognized, in deeds and words, their
responsibility for stewardship of the earth.

The stark facts carry a clear signal:

There is only one responsible choice --- to act now.

We, the signers of this declaration, urge all government leaders
to demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global
environment for future generations. The important first step is
to join in completing a strong and meaningful Climate Treaty at
Kyoto.

WE ENCOURAGE SCIENTISTS AND CITIZENS AROUND THE WORLD TO HOLD
THEIR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ADDRESSING THE GLOBAL WARMING
THREAT.

Leaders must take this first step to protect future generations
from dire prospects that would result from failure to meet our
responsibilities toward them.

The Web of Environmental Effects

Atmospheric Disruption

Predictions of global climatic change are becoming more
confident. A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is
that there is now "a discernible human influence on global
climate."
Climate change is projected to raise sea levels, threatening
populations and ecosystems in coastal regions. Warmer
temperatures will lead to a more vigorous hydrologic cycle,
increasing the prospects for more intense rainfall, floods, or
droughts in some regions. Human health may be damaged by greater
exposure to heat waves and droughts, and by encroachment of
tropical diseases to higher latitudes. The developing world is
especially vulnerable to damage from climatic disruption because
it is already under great stress and has less capacity to adapt.

Climate Change: Linkages and Further Damage

Destructive logging and deforestation for agriculture
continue to wreak havoc on the world's remaining tropical
forests. The burning of the Amazonian rain forests continues
largely unabated. Other forests in developed and developing
nations are under heavy pressure.

Destruction of forests greatly amplifies soil erosion and
water wastage, is a major source of loss of species, and
undermines the environment's natural ability to store carbon. It
releases additional carbon to the atmosphere, thereby enhancing
global warming.

Fossil-fueled energy use is climbing, both in industrial
nations and in the developing world, adding to atmospheric
carbon. Efforts to enhance energy conservation and improve
efficiency are much hindered by low energy costs and by perverse
incentives that encourage waste.

Without firm commitments, most industrial nations will not
meet the carbon-emission goals they agreed to at the 1992 Rio
conference. The transition to renewable, non-fossil-carbon-based
energy sources is feasible but is not in sight for lack of
aggressive political will.

The insurance industry has recognized the risks posed by
climate change. Leading economists have identified viable
policies for reducing these risks. Markets undervalue ecosystems
worldwide and inflict few penalties against practices that do
long-term environmental and resource damage. Political
leadership must introduce incentives that reward sound practices.

Water Scarcity and Food Security

Humanity now uses over one-half of the total accessible
freshwater runoff. Freshwater is the scarcest resource in the
Middle East and in North Africa. Efforts to husband freshwater
are not succeeding there, in East Asia, or in the Pacific.

Global food production now appears to be outpaced by growth
in consumption and population. There is broad agreement that
food demand will double by 2030. Most land suitable for
agriculture is already in production. Sub-Saharan Africa's
increase in agricultural production is one-third less than its
population growth. The region now produces 80 percent of what it
consumes, and per capita production is declining. Projections
indicate that demand for food in Asia will exceed the supply by
2010. Thus, food consumption levels in many countries are likely
to remain totally inadequate for good nutrition. Widespread
undernutrition will persist unless extraordinary measures are
taken to ensure food for all, measures not now even contemplated
by governments. Climate change is likely to exacerbate these food
problems by adversely affecting water supplies, soil conditions,
temperature tolerances, and growing seasons.

Destruction of Species

Climate change will accelerate the appalling pace at which
species are now being liquidated, especially in vulnerable
ecosystems. One-fourth of the known species of mammals are
threatened, and half of these may be gone within a decade.
Possibly one-third of all species may be lost before the end of
the next century. Biodiversity gives stability to the ecosystems
that we are so dependent on, enhances their productivity, and
provides an important source of new foods, medicines, and other
products.

Selected Prominent Signatories to the World Scientists' Call for
Action at the Kyoto Climate Summit

NOBEL LAUREATES

* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

CRAFOORD LAUREATES
* Vladimir I. Arnold, France. Mathematics 1982
* Paul R. Ehrlich, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Daniel H. Janzen, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Eugene P. Odum, USA. Biosciences 1987
* Edward O. Wilson, USA. Biosciences 1990

SELECTED OFFICERS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
ACADEMIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
* Carlos Aguirre, President, Bolivian Academy of Sciences
* Jorge Eduardo Allende, Former President, Chilean Academy of
Sciences
* A. Andreev, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Sir Michael Atiyah, Former President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Francisco J. Ayala, Former President, American Association for
the Advancement of Science
* Carl Gustaf Bernhard, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy
of Sciences
* Bert Bolin, Former Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Paulo C. Campos, Former President, Philippines National
Academy of Science and Technology
* Carlos Chagas, Former President, Latin American Academy of
Sciences
* Satish Dhawan, Former President, Indian Academy of Sciences
* Johanna Dobereiner, Vice-President, Brazilian Academy of
Sciences
* Mahdi Elmandjra, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* T. Geoffrey Flynn, Vice-President, Royal Society of Canada
* Fran?ois Gros, Permanent Secretary, French Academy of Sciences
* Lars Gyllensten, Former Chair, The Nobel Foundation
* Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy
of Sciences
* Robert Heap, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gunnar Hoppe, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences
* Sir John Horlock, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Carl-Olof Jacobsen, Former Secretary-General, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences
* Alf Johnels, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences
* Triloki Nath Khoshoo, Former President, Indian National
Academy of Sciences
* Sir Aaron Klug, President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gustavo Kouri, Vice-President, Cuban Academy of Sciences
* Torvard Laurent, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences
* N. P. Laverov, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Jane Lubchenco, Chair, American Association for the
Advancement of Science
* Digby McLaren, Former President, Royal Society of Canada
* Hubert Markl, President, Max Planck Society
* M. G. K. Menon, Former President, International Council of
Scientific Unions
* G. A. Mesiatz, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Harold A. Mooney, Secretary General, International Council of
Scientific Unions
* Lawrence A. Mysak, Former President, Academy of Sciences of
the Royal Society of Canada
* Jan S. Nilsson, President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Erling Norrby, Secretary General, Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences
* Thomas Odhiambo, President, African Academy of Sciences
* Gideon Okelo, Secretary General, African Academy of Sciences
* Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Former President, Nigerian Academy
of Sciences
* Yuri S. Osipov, President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Abed Peeraly, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* Chintamani Rao, Vice-President, Third World Academy of
Sciences
* Peter H. Raven, Home Secretary, US National Academy of
Sciences
* R. S. Reneman, Chair, Science Division, Royal Netherlands
Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Igor Saavedra, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
* Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza, Chair, Italian National
Academy of Sciences
* Arun Kumar Sharma, Founding President, Federation of Asian
Scientific Academies and Societies
* Jose Israel Vargas, President, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Henrik Wallgren, President, Finnish Society of Sciences and
Letters
* Richard Willems, Vice-President, Estonian Academy of Sciences
* Dongsheng Yan, Senior Adviser, Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Guang-Zhao Zhou, President, Third World Academy of Sciences

===========================
Contact: Rich Hayes
[1]rha...@ucsusa.org
202-332-0900
[2]Union of Concerned Scientists

Archived at: http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

[Steven Hales]

Rich Puchalsky wrote in message <66ce11$us$1...@news1.mnsinc.com>...

>Steven Hales (sha...@pipeline.com) wrote:
>: At the other end of the debate (the civilized one) the real scientists
(some
>: of them on this newsgroup) have confused dissent with the majority
opinion
>: on climate change with an anti-science attitude. There are those who
even
>: suggest that the arguments against are equivalent to arguing for
creationism
>: or for the theory of a young earth, whose proponents seize on past
science
>: folly as proof of present science incompetence.
>
>Past science "folly"? No creationist has, to my knowledge, brought up any
>examples of actual folly. They simply bring up instances where new
knowledge
>has been discovered, and pretend that this means older science was folly.

There is no internal inconsistency between these two statements because the
creationists have found convenient evidence or misinterpretation of evidence
as proof of past folly and they view mainstream consensus to be inconsistent
with the "new" or revealed evidence and therefore evidence of incompetence
if past views are not altered in the face of supposed new evidence.
Creationists adhere to a mode of thinking that says that the world is
knowable in an absolute sense a very Medieval view that Bacon railed against
and that Heisenberg showed to be false, at least at the level of the atom
and its parts.

>
>: While there may be some
>: justification for this defensive posture the real dissenters bring up
good
>: points. Balling emphasizes [...]
>
>But the point is that the people on these newsgroups are not the real
>dissenters.

But they are entitled to debate these issues. The problem is that science
often challenges conventional wisdom and social structures and habitual ways
of behaving. The debate on climate change brings this into sharp relief.

Because science is misunderstood i.e., that it is not absolute truth, but a
series of "if we assume this then what happens when this other thing varies"
types of hypotheses and experiments. Science is always couched in such
terms of uncertainty. The layperson seeking some kind of consensus in
science will be sore pressed to discover it at the professional level of
debate. This is not to say that science is not useful for it is the best
approximation of an explanation for how the world works and can be verified
by others.

When those "others" are the lay community and not other scientists they
depend upon the popularizers of science to inform them of what all this
technical stuff really means. But in the climate change debate there are
those on the dissenting side who have argued for more certainity than can
exist. The consensus on climate change is presented as some proof of this
certainty but because science and politics have become so intertwined in the
climate change debate it is extremely difficult for the lay person to
believe anyone, as all are seen as peddling some degree of self-interest.

The "sceptics" here are almost uniformly ignorant. In fact,
>they are so ignorant, and often so ideologically motivated, that they
>don't even realize that they are ignorant.

I think it is useful to understand that man is optimized as a social
creature and depends on habitual modes of behaving to avoid thinking, as our
primitive ancestors had to think, of where the next meal would come from,
this is not to say that primitive man did not engage in similar kinds of
habitual modes of behaving. As our store of knowledge has increased we have
become more and more independent of more basic habitual modes but no less
dependent on other habitual modes such as commuting to work via auto or
turning up the thermostat to take the morning chill off the house. When
these habitual modes of behaving are challenged we have uproars and protests
and the debate gets nasty and people want "proof" for the proposed remedies.
These are not unreasonable challenges but they point up some thorny issues
for science policy in the 21st century.

If man is a social creature who depends upon observation, analogy and
selective filtering to make sense of the world around him, how can science
policy be structured to communicate some of the counterintuitive theories of
science where they impact day to day life? These counterintuitve
conclusions that seem to go against common sense and even observation are
hidden from view by most lay people because to understand them would require
an in depth understanding of the science and all of its nuances. Save such
an investment of time by the average person what recourse do scientists have
to communicate with the lay community? For a diversion lets journey to
antiquity and a brief description of the Ptolemaic System and the evolution
to the modern heliocentric view.

The Ptolemaic System was consistent with observation and common sense. The
sun rose and set, the moon also, the stars rotated, apparently, in regular
yearly and seasonal patterns, all of which had come to govern man's queues
for planting and harvesting as well as a pantheon of gods and goddesses that
oversaw the affairs of men. But underlying such observations was a complex
system of geometry that impresses even today's astronomers. Ptolemy, it is
interesting to note, ignored many inconsistencies in his theory with
observation. For example the theory states the position of the mean sun and
real sun in its assumed annual journey around the earth and Ptolemy corrects
for this in what is known as the "equation of center" but what he had
through observation was some evidence of the elliptical orbit of the earth
around the sun and was correcting for this anomaly to make the geocentric
theory consistent with observation. (A not dissimilar defense of theory in
the face of observation occurred in the 1920s when the observations of the
decay of the atomic nucleus did not show the same results as experimental
observation. To resolve the issue Wolfgang Pauli proposed the neutrino a
solution that was met with disdain by scientists because "it is the kind of
ad-hoc gap filling that scientists so dislike." The neutrino did not
explain anything new it just made the current theory consistent with
observation. Eventually it was accepted and the neutrino actually detected
and its properties measured some 25 years after Pauli hypothesized it.)

Sometimes this ad-hoc gap filling works out in making a theory consistent
with observation and subsequent observations verify that the theory remains
a valid predictor. But the Ptolemaic System suffered, by the time of
Copernicus, from so much of this ad-hoc gap filling that it collapsed of its
own weight as a new theory was advanced that neatly handled some the
inconsistencies though it remained for Kepler to work out the elliptical
orbits.

What has this to do with the current debate and the difficulty that
climatologists have had in presenting their case to the public? Well, there
has been a fair share of ad-hoc gap filling going on in climatology. The
proposition of sulfate aerosols, flux adjustments to models to maintain
consistency, arbitrary variations of the solar constant in models to
simulate certain climate forcings, incomplete paramertizations of clouds,
the modeling of the oceans as a swamp and on and on. Now, this does not
mean that these ad-hoc methods are wrong it is just that they are not adding
to our knowledge of climate. They are fixes to theory. Climatologists
should be uneasy about their ad-hoc methods but it seems they are not as
most speak of the consensus among themselves. While they may be comfortable
with their ad-hoc methods when these methods are revealed to the public
there is a natural distrust of the conclusions derived from them. The onus
is upon the climatologists to explain the ad-hoc nature of their theories
and how they have evolved. But it is also incumbent upon the lay community
to understand that sometimes theories suffer from ad-hoc adjustments to
maintain consistency with observation. I note at this point that
observations seem to be overwhelming traditional theory but no reasonable
substitute theory has emerged. Time will tell.

[snip]

Regards,

Steve

[John Alway]

Jay Hanson wrote:

> John Alway wrote in message <3489AB...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...

> > The science is on his web site, for goodness sakes.
> > And why don't you open your eyes and look at what
> > scientists are saying?

> WORLD SCIENTISTS' CALL FOR ACTION AT THE KYOTO CLIMATE SUMMIT

I'm not talking about leftist politics, I'm talking
about scientists who evaluate the evidence. And,
more specifically, I'm talking about climatologists,
and those in closely related fields. The best in those
fields are not supporting this global warming fear
mongering, because the evidence doesn't support it.
This, btw, is how real scientists think. They
look at the _evidence_.

For the record, there were many Nobel prize winners
who signed the Heidelberg Appeal concerned with
out of control environmentalism.

As to those scientists who are supporing the
hysteria, well, it's a big mark against them.

...John

[Scott Nudds]

: (Doug Bashford) wrote:
: > These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific

: > consensus and often even accepted standard logic,
: > they are used to being rejected

: > by their peers and by society. However with media stars and political

: > wonks like Rush Limbaugh, etc. telling these people they are not
: > screwball company-man sheep nor rich-boy bootlicks, nor mean-spirited,
: > -- that they are "original thinkers", -- they have a nice exclusive club
: > where they can feel accepted, perhaps for the first time in their life;
: > validated. Their defense is extreme self-censorship of all input
: > information, including mind-filters.

Very true. I have noticed that the most extreme
anti-environmentalists have a great deal in common on the personal
level. Many that I have come to know have been taxi drivers, and social
misfits who often have had a lot of contact with the law and feel they
have been victimized by lawyers - often referred to simply as "Jews".

I remember one member of the denialist club expressing pride in the
fact that he had been to court 20-30 times, mostly with nuisance cases,
failure to pay rent due to a broken light switch cover for example. And
I remember another who now is a prominent fixture in Nizkor who claimed
to be proud of being a former slum lord.

Course, there was always the murderer, the one that committed suicide
and the legions of social misfits who claim to be members of militia
groups.

All were ditto heads who expressed a devotion to Limbaugh, expressed
violent hate toward the first family and would regularly regurgitate his
dishonest bile.

--
<---->

[Jay Hanson]

John Alway wrote in message <348A20...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...

> For the record, there were many Nobel prize winners
> who signed the Heidelberg Appeal concerned with
> out of control environmentalism.

For the record Alway, You are a lying son of a bitch.

[Doug Huffman]

I am glad that Nudds has made it to a Limbaugh group. Nudds, if I wasn't a
dittohead of eight or nine years tenure, you would drive me to it. Every
name that you call any one that doesn't believe just as you I am proud to
accept. Were you face to face with me I would be vengeful hateful
mean-spirited and deny you further existence. At the bar of justice, I
would claim justification and gladly accept my judgement. I would know
that, even if global warming toasted gaia tomorrow, we were better for your
absence.
--
Don't blame me, I voted for Jefferson Davis.
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!

Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in article
<66crfm$c...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...

[John McCarthy]

"Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> writes:

>
> John Alway wrote in message <348A20...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...
>
> > For the record, there were many Nobel prize winners
> > who signed the Heidelberg Appeal concerned with
> > out of control environmentalism.
>
>
> For the record Alway, You are a lying son of a bitch.

Hanson is mistaken. Does anyone have a list of Heidelberg signers?
The organizers of the Heidelberg Appeal are not as well organized as
UCS, which has a paid staff. I was solicited twice to sign the UCS
Appeal and didn't and not solicited at all to sign the Heidelberg
Appeal and would have.

There were quite a number of people who signed both appeals.

--
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.

[John Alway]

Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com>

>John Alway wrote in message <348A20...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...

>> For the record, there were many Nobel prize winners
>> who signed the Heidelberg Appeal concerned with
>> out of control environmentalism.

>For the record Alway, You are a lying son of a bitch.

On the contrary, I'm honest to the core. And, unlike
you, I follow the evidence where ever it leads. I don't
pretend that there is no satellite or ballon data. I
don't pretend there is no urban heat isle effect. I
don't pretend that ground level data has many confounding
factors that satellite data doesn't have. I don't pretend
that there wasn't a little ice age from the 1400s into the
1800s. To get right to the point, I don't pretend that I
can fool reality.

The Heidelberg Appeal is a _fact_. It was in
the Wall Street Journal June 1, 1992 (page A 12). The title
"Beware False Gods in Rio". At the time there were 218
scientists who signed it, forty-six were prominent and 27 nobel
prize winners. I believe this later ballooned up over
1000 scientists.

...John

[Anon]

In article <348AF7...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>, John Alway
<jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote:

Compare the scientists John cites to the 2600 U.S. "Scientists" who signed
some sort of document (sorry, I no longer have the article in fron of me)
supporting action against global warming. Fear mongerers are always
pointing to the supposed concensus on the subject. Research discovered
many of thew 2600 persons were unrelated to climatology or science at all.
One was a plastic surgeon. Anyone have that article with the rest of the
stats on thenon-scientists?

[Anon]

Jay,

Your list of participating scientists is puzzling. Your list of
participating scientists from scientific academies tells nothing of their
field of scientific expertise. Many of those with specialties listed seem
to be in fields that would examine the EFFECTS of warming rather than the
CAUSE or even if it is occurring at all. I have to presume that these
people are ASSUMING that global warming will occur and warning us only of
the dire EFFECTS that it will have if it does. And what the hell does an
ECONOMIST know about it -- even if he is a Nobel Laureate? How do Nobel
Laureates in the fields of PEACE, ECONOMICS, or PHYSIOLOGY/MEDICINE figures
into the study of whether global warming is occurring?

[Dave Stone]

"Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> wrotf:

****A very interesting and concise wrapup of the scientific
viewpoint****

applause from the audience....

My congratulations for a scientific post...

[Dave Stone]

John Alway <jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrotf:

> can fool reality.
>
> The Heidelberg Appeal is a _fact_. It was in
> the Wall Street Journal June 1, 1992 (page A 12). The title
> "Beware False Gods in Rio". At the time there were 218
> scientists who signed it, forty-six were prominent and 27 nobel
> prize winners. I believe this later ballooned up over
> 1000 scientists.
>
>
> ...John

Is this the SAME WSJ that published an IDIOTIC article last week about
GW written by a couple of morons from the "Institute for Science and
Medicine" in Oregon? These two SHITs put forth the most moronic
claptrap I've ever seen!

I guess you believe them...Is everything you read, or hear on rush
limbaugh a fact?

Stupid shit...

[Scott Nudds]

Rheuddog (rds...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I am not a Limbaugh-Conspiracy Theorist. Yes, I listen to NPR, read the

: New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly, blah, blah, blah. There are
: many 'scientists' who have noted impressive evidence against this Global
: Warming Religion. Most notably, the MIT professor (forget his name)
: who was recently profiled in the NYT of all places.

What Rhueddog doens't wish to know is that this is the same MIT
professor (forget his name) who has publicly admitted that the earth's
temperature will continue to rise.

Now isn't that special?

Rhuddog wrote:
: Is it not

: possible that the increase in carbon is responsible for the documented
: increase in foliage density, thereby counteracting the negative effects?

If it were capable of counteracting the negative effects - the increase
in atmospheric CO2 levels, it would already be doing so. Atmospheric Co2
levels are observed to be increasing. Hence plants are not absorbing
enough CO2 to counter the observed emissions.

Simple logic ay?

Rhuddog wrote:
: I am contemplating a conversion to Conspiracy Theorist because none of

: these contrary voices are discussed in the 'mainstream' except on
: occaision or in the Wall Streest Journal.

For exactly the same reason you don't see perpetual motion enthusiasts
and flat earthers profiled in "mainstream" media. Some attention is paid
to the denialist position however. The reporting I have seen correctly
states that such denialism exists in a small but vocal minority of
politically charged malcontents.

Rhuddog wrote
: The earth's temp has gone down by 1 degree in the last 20 years.
: Explain this, please.

Simple explanation... It's wrong. Here is the data. And by the way,
1997 is probably going the be the hottest year on record.

Now isn't that special?

1976 ......................*
1977 .........................................*
1978 .....................................*
1979 ........................................*
1980 ...............................................*
1981 .....................................................*
1982 ....................................*
1983 ...............................................*
1984 ......................................*
1985 ......................................*
1986 .........................................*
1987 .................................................*
1988 ...................................................*
1989 .............................................*
1990 .........................................................*
1991 ......................................................*
<-Pinatubo
1992 ........................................*
1993 ...........................................*
1994 .................................................*

No cooling there John Boy...

[John McCarthy]

Probably they shouldn't, but it is common for scientists to sign
statements unrelated to their specific expertise. The UCS statement
mentioned so many fears that almost anyone, even I, could find fear of
his own in it. It would be interesting to have a list of those who
signed both the UCS statement and the Heidelberg appeal. One could
consistently do this if one's position was that UCS statement called
needed attention to important problems and the Heidelberg appeal
correctly pointed out that there was a danger of excess in the
proposed corrective measures.

[Harold]

On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 01:42:17 GMT, dst...@wgst.com (Dave Stone) wrote:

>John Alway <jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrotf:
>
>> can fool reality.
>>
>> The Heidelberg Appeal is a _fact_. It was in
>> the Wall Street Journal June 1, 1992 (page A 12). The title
>> "Beware False Gods in Rio". At the time there were 218
>> scientists who signed it, forty-six were prominent and 27 nobel
>> prize winners. I believe this later ballooned up over
>> 1000 scientists.
>

>Is this the SAME WSJ that published an IDIOTIC article last week about
>GW written by a couple of morons from the "Institute for Science and
>Medicine" in Oregon? These two SHITs put forth the most moronic
>claptrap I've ever seen!
>
>I guess you believe them...Is everything you read, or hear on rush
>limbaugh a fact?

I really must commend your command of logic. You have managed to get
several logical fallacies in one comment.

First, you have several instances of ad hominem attacks. First
against some scientists, then about the pervious poster.

Finally, you have tried to smear the poster with a derogatory
association with Rush Limbaugh.

>Stupid shit...

Now, you get repetitive. You have already got an ad hominem attack on
the poster. Did you think your readers are too stupid to notice?

When will you have a comment to post that has a reasoned argument? Do
you know any?

Regards, Harold
----
"The citizenry should live...in socialistic communities of
3000 or less and...consume only what they produce"
- Rodolph Bahro, co-founder, German Green Movement. cit. "Rio
Reductionism", Media Watch, July 1992.

[Steve Fordyce]

On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 13:40:01, new...@olywa.net (Kirk Johnson) wrote:
|In article <654a18$m89$1...@alpine.psnw.com>, see...@thebeach.edu (Doug

|Bashford) wrote:
|>These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
|>consensus and often even accepted standard logic,

Ridiculous. There is no scientific consensus behind the idea that man
has or is causing dangerous global warming. Indeed, there is a growing
consensus that that theory is wrong:

"Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur B. Robinson
and Zachary W. Robinson, WSJ, December 4, 1997, pA22.
Available at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

|>they are used to being rejected
|>by their peers and by society. However with media stars and political
|>wonks like Rush Limbaugh, etc. telling these people they are not
|>screwball company-man sheep nor rich-boy bootlicks, nor mean-spirited,
|>-- that they are "original thinkers", -- they have a nice exclusive club
|>where they can feel accepted, perhaps for the first time in their life;
|>validated. Their defense is extreme self-censorship of all input
|>information, including mind-filters.
|

|I think this is a very accurate observation. There is a lot of truth there.

You guys are projecting. You are the ones ignoring sound science.

The global warming theory goes like this:

A) Global average temperature has gone up 0.6 degrees centigrade since
around 1880.

B) CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

C) The concentration of CO2 has increased about 30% since 1880 due to
human production of CO2.

D) C is the cause of A.

E) Further increase in global temperature will be disastrous for man and
life on earth.

F) Therefore, man must cut his production of CO2 to avoid further
temperature increase.

There is not a single item enumerated above that is not in serious
dispute and subject to great scientific uncertainty. So much so it
would be preposterous for us to take drastic action based on this
theory.

A: This is at best a very misleading representation of the actual
measurements, and at worst a outright lie. Scientific measurements are
never just a number like this, but the number measured or calculated
followed by its uncertainty, +/- something for round off in the
calculation and uncertainty in the measurement. Note you almost never
see that associated with global warming. I've only seen a figure given
for this a few times[1], and they have the increase as 0.45 +/- 0.15.
If that were true, 0.6 degrees is not the calculated increase, but the
worst case. It could have been as little as 0.3 degrees. But frankly I
don't believe 0.15 degrees comes even close to expressing the
uncertainties in the measurements.

We have no instrument that reads out the global average temperature for
a year. What we have is recorded temperatures from weather stations.
These are not at all scattered evenly around the globe, but are
concentrated in major cities, especially in the earlier years. Coverage
of the Southern hemisphere, and Africa is poor, and until relatively
recently there was no or next to no coverage of the oceans which account
for 3/4 of the planet's surface. Antarctica hadn't even been set foot on
until 1895, not to mention the increasing heat island effect as cities
grow (cities are warmer than the surrounding country side because of
heat absorbed by pavement, etc). So to use this data to measure global
average temperature is dubious at best.

Taking the data at face value, most of the supposed warming occurred
before 1940 when the uncertainties in the data are the worst, the
increase in the heat island effect was probably the greatest, and
embarrassingly, BEFORE most of the increase in CO2. The best data we
have for global temperature by far come from satellites. We have that
data for the last 19 years, and they show a slight cooling over that
period (hence the statement from Rush and other commentators that there
is no global warming).

For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/

B: It is often said in the mass media that CO2 is the most important
greenhouse gas. This is flatly false. It is not even clear it is an
important factor in global temperature. Water vapor accounts for about
98% of the greenhouse effect (without which the earth would be a frozen
waste). All other greenhouse gases account for only 2%, and of them CO2
is the most important. However, it is not clear how much, if at all,
changes in CO2 levels would effect global temperature because the action
of water vapor is complex (temperature affects water vapor levels,
clouds cool the earth during the day, warm it at night, etc.). The
action of water vapor cannot be satisfactorily modeled currently, i.e.
uncertainty in the computer models on water vapor dwarf any effect
calculated for changes in CO2.

C: Man's production of CO2 is a small percentage of natural CO2
production. The notion is that sources and sinks of CO2 were in balance
and man's admittedly small addition to CO2 sources tipped that delicate
balance in favor of ever increasing levels of CO2. It is to laugh. If
there is any that is clear from our studies of the environment it is
that there is nothing "delicate" about the "balance" of nature, on CO2
or anything else. In any case, our quantitative understanding of the
CO2 cycle is not good enough for the belief that man caused the recent
increase in CO2 levels to be based on anything firmer than post hoc ergo
prompter hoc and (an unjustified) faith in the power of mankind.

Because of the theory of global warming, it is now popular among greens
to refer to CO2 as a pollutant. This is absurd. CO2 is breathed by
plants and is necessary for life. The increased levels of CO2 have made
plants more productive, which is a very good thing.

D: The notion that C caused A is based on computer models. It is
important to understand just how poor these models are. If you start
with present condition and work backwards, they do not predict the known
past. If you start with past conditions, you don't get the present,
and always the direction of the error is in predicting too much warming
for increased CO2. So why do we suddenly believe these models when we
run them into the future? Again, the output of these models is not just
a single number, as it is almost always given in main stream media, but
a calculated prediction, AND an error band, the calculated uncertainty
in the prediction. Well, the reason for this is clear, the uncertainty
in the prediction dwarfs the predicted increase. Literally, according
to the models, increased CO2 levels could result in significantly LOWER
global temperatures (because of possible changes in cloud cover, etc.).

For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

E: It is not at all clear that increased global temperatures would be
bad for man or life in general. It could, in fact, be very good. Based
on our current understanding it is just as likely that increased
temperatures would make the climates milder, storms less severe, and
drop ocean levels or leave them unchanged. The reason for this is that
there is reason to believe that increased AVERAGE temperature could
manifest itself not as higher highs, but as warmer lows at night.
Storms are driven by temperature contrasts, and this should decrease
storm severity. And warmer lows wouldn't necessarily result in a
smaller net ice pack at the poles.

F: Even if A through E were all true, it is not at all clear that the
most reasonable response is to cut CO2 production. The economy greatly
depends on the burning of fossil fuels and other CO2 producing
materials. Cutting down would be extremely costly, and there are a
number of cheaper, high tech options. In November 1997 issue of REASON,
the cover story is devoted to some of these (the story is available on
the web at: http://www.reasonmag.com/9711/fe.benford.html). My
favorite: the Geritol solution. Plankton growth in the cold waters of
the Pacific are limited primarily by a shortage of the trace mineral
iron. A relatively inexpensive program of fertilizing these waters with
iron could so increase plankton growth that CO2 levels could be reduced
(or man's contributions consumed). This would have the added benefit of
making the oceans more productive for things like salmon.

When the weaknesses of the global warming theory are acknowledged, the
usual response by the greens is to rhetorically ask, "Can we afford to
wait? What if the theory is right?" Well, these are answerable
questions, and the answer is not, "We must act now." The same models
that predict we have a problem can be used to assess the costs and risks
for waiting, say ten years. This has been done, and the costs are small
compared to the huge costs of cutting CO2 production now. A more
sensible question would be, "Can we afford to act now? What if the
theory is wrong?"

For more on this subject, especially the junk science associated with
the theory of global warming, I recommend http://www.junkscience.com.
Search locally for articles on global warming. Those pushing the
global warming theory claim the mantel of science, but it is clear it is
not science that is driving the movement. It is ridiculous that we
should even think about signing the UN charter on global warming.

[1] "Holes in the Greenhouse Effect" by Patrick J. Michaels, Washington
Post, Sunday June 22, 1997 page C02 or
http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
--
ste...@hevanet.com I am the NRA Steven R. Fordyce
-- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? --

[Dave v1.0]

In article <348b4f6c...@news.atl.mindspring.com>, dst...@wgst.com wrote:

These two SHITs put forth the most moronic
> claptrap I've ever seen!

>
> Stupid shit...

You certianly are not doing yourself any good little Stoney...spewing all
that filth and lies...

Did you know the UN report of GW specicially says

"Natural climate variability hinders the detection of any man-made warming
trend. Figures A and B show past variations in the global mean temperature
inferred from direct measurements (A) and from the analysis of ice-cores
(B). While the state of the climate clearly involves much more than just
global temperature, changes in global temperatures do indicate the scale of
different climatic events, both natural and man-made. The range of natural
year-to-year temperature variations is quite similar to the size of the
warming that appears to have occurred over the past century (0.3-0.6 C).
Moreover, the 16th to 18th centuries appear to have been unusually cold, and
the climate may still be recovering from that time. So scientists cannot yet
claim to have found an unambiguous temperature-related "greenhouse signal".

So little Stoney, the UN doesn't even make absoulute statements about this
"crisis".

Perhaps as you sit there beating away you might have a revelation..

--
"If you wish to drown, do not torture yourself with shallow water" -- Bulgarian proverb.

Or was it the mission statement for the Windows95 team??

[Scott Nudds]

(Onar Aam) wrote:
: Let me just quickly add that if all scientists adhered to the scientific
: consensus at all times then we would still be in the dark ages. Great
: leaps in science are often initiated by "crackpots."

It is up to the "crackpot" to prove his case in a rational manner
using accepted procedures. What we see with global warming denialism,
ozone depletion denialism, acid rain denialism, and a host of other
scientific illiteracy, is the opposition of the scientific consensus
based on political ideals rather than science.

We don't see much reasoned thinking on these subjects by the denialist
crowd, we don't see much learning. What we see are the same old refuted
arguments repeatedly presented by the same scientific illiterate ditto
heads.

You will note that <none> of us who defend the scientific consensus
opinion have any problem with Singer, Lindzen or the small handfull of
other skeptics who take issue with the science - provided they do so in
a honest manner. And this is not always the case.

Personally, I value the attacks made on the consensus by this minute
band of dissenters. They keep the rest of us honest.

(Onar Aam) wrote:
: The fact is that no scientists --
: dissenter or consenter -- question

: 1) the greenhouse effect as a phenomenon and

: 2) that it occurs on earth and keeps it some 20-30 degrees
: warmer than it otherwise would be, and

: 3) that an increase in greenhouse gases will further warm the earth.

And yet we find denialists here who insist that it's all a global
conspiracy and a scam. I invite you join the cause to combat this
promotion of evil.

(Onar Aam) wrote:
: All in all, being a skeptic of global warming is easy. It's just a matter
: of saying "look at the data!" The interesting thing here is that those
: who actually do this are called crackpots and accused of conspiring with
: oil and coal companies.

Look at the data Onar... Here it is...

Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42)

1867 ....*
1868 .........*
1869 ..............*
1870 ...........*
1871 .............*
1872 .....................*
1873 ........................*
1874 .........*
1875 ...*
1876 ............*
1877 ............................*
1878 ................................*
1879 ........*
1880 ................*
1881 ................*
1882 .............*
1883 .............*
1884 .*
1885 ...........*
1886 .............*
1887 .......*
1888 ..................*
1889 ...........................*
1890 .............*
1891 ............*
1892 .............*
1893 ..........*
1894 ...............*
1895 ...............*
1896 .......................*
1897 ..........................*
1898 ..............*
1899 ......................*
1900 ................................*
1901 .............................*
1902 ....................*
1903 ...............*
1904 .........*
1905 ...................*
1906 ........................*
1907 ...........*
1908 ..................*
1909 ..................*
1910 ..................*
1911 ..................*
1912 ...................*
1913 ......................*
1914 ...............................*
1915 ................................*
1916 .....................*
1917 ............*
1918 ...............*
1919 ........................*
1920 ........................*
1921 ............................*
1922 ..........................*
1923 .........................*
1924 ..........................*
1925 ..........................*
1926 ......................................*
1927 ...............................*
1928 ..................................*
1929 ........................*
1930 ..............................*
1931 ..................................*
1932 ..................................*
1933 ..........................*
1934 ..................................*
1935 ..............................*
1936 ..................................*
1937 .......................................*
1938 .......................................*
1939 ................................*
1940 ........................................*
1941 .......................................*
1942 .....................................*
1943 ..................................*
1944 ......................................*
1945 ...............................*
1946 ..................................*
1947 .......................................*
1948 ................................*
1949 ..............................*
1950 ..........................*
1951 ................................*
1952 ...................................*
1953 .......................................*
1954 ..............................*
1955 ..............................*
1956 ........................*
1957 ......................................*
1958 ......................................*
1959 ....................................*
1960 .................................*
1961 .....................................*
1962 ..................................*
1963 ..................................*
1964 ....................*
1965 .........................*
1966 ............................*
1967 ................................*
1968 ...........................*
1969 ..................................*
1970 ...................................*
1971 ............................*
1972 ..............................*
1973 ...........................................*
1974 ..............................*
1975 ..............................*

1976 ......................*
1977 .........................................*
1978 .....................................*
1979 ........................................*
1980 ...............................................*
1981 .....................................................*
1982 ....................................*
1983 ...............................................*
1984 ......................................*
1985 ......................................*
1986 .........................................*
1987 .................................................*
1988 ...................................................*
1989 .............................................*
1990 .........................................................*
1991 ......................................................* <-Pinatubo
1992 ........................................*
1993 ...........................................*
1994 .................................................*

--
<---->

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

ste...@vista.hevanet.com (Steve Fordyce) wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 13:40:01, new...@olywa.net (Kirk Johnson) wrote:
>|In article <654a18$m89$1...@alpine.psnw.com>, see...@thebeach.edu (Doug
>|Bashford) wrote:
>|>These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
>|>consensus and often even accepted standard logic,

>Ridiculous. There is no scientific consensus behind the idea that man
>has or is causing dangerous global warming. Indeed, there is a growing
>consensus that that theory is wrong:

that is just an outright lie

>"Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur B. Robinson
>and Zachary W. Robinson, WSJ, December 4, 1997, pA22.
>Available at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

anybody can get anything printed in the popular media, now where is
the cite for the peer reviewed work?

>|>they are used to being rejected
>|>by their peers and by society. However with media stars and political
>|>wonks like Rush Limbaugh, etc. telling these people they are not
>|>screwball company-man sheep nor rich-boy bootlicks, nor mean-spirited,
>|>-- that they are "original thinkers", -- they have a nice exclusive club
>|>where they can feel accepted, perhaps for the first time in their life;
>|>validated. Their defense is extreme self-censorship of all input
>|>information, including mind-filters.
>|
>|I think this is a very accurate observation. There is a lot of truth there.

>You guys are projecting. You are the ones ignoring sound science.

>The global warming theory goes like this:

> A) Global average temperature has gone up 0.6 degrees centigrade since
> around 1880.

> B) CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

> C) The concentration of CO2 has increased about 30% since 1880 due to
> human production of CO2.

> D) C is the cause of A.

> E) Further increase in global temperature will be disastrous for man and
> life on earth.

> F) Therefore, man must cut his production of CO2 to avoid further
> temperature increase.

>There is not a single item enumerated above that is not in serious
>dispute and subject to great scientific uncertainty. So much so it

my,my you are stomping your little feet and making yourself look
foolish. There is not a point above that is in serious debate. The
only possible except woud be the extent of the effects of global
warming.

>would be preposterous for us to take drastic action based on this
>theory.

>A: This is at best a very misleading representation of the actual
>measurements, and at worst a outright lie. Scientific measurements are
>never just a number like this, but the number measured or calculated
>followed by its uncertainty, +/- something for round off in the
>calculation and uncertainty in the measurement. Note you almost never
>see that associated with global warming. I've only seen a figure given

no the +/- is rarely used but it is very common to fond the range of
the values given: the high, the low, the average or most likely

>for this a few times[1], and they have the increase as 0.45 +/- 0.15.
>If that were true, 0.6 degrees is not the calculated increase, but the
>worst case. It could have been as little as 0.3 degrees. But frankly I
>don't believe 0.15 degrees comes even close to expressing the
>uncertainties in the measurements.

>We have no instrument that reads out the global average temperature for
>a year. What we have is recorded temperatures from weather stations.
>These are not at all scattered evenly around the globe, but are
>concentrated in major cities, especially in the earlier years. Coverage
>of the Southern hemisphere, and Africa is poor, and until relatively
>recently there was no or next to no coverage of the oceans which account
>for 3/4 of the planet's surface. Antarctica hadn't even been set foot on
>until 1895, not to mention the increasing heat island effect as cities
>grow (cities are warmer than the surrounding country side because of
>heat absorbed by pavement, etc). So to use this data to measure global
>average temperature is dubious at best.

wrong it is perfectly valid. The heat island effect did not magically
appear in this century, it has been part of cities from the beginning.
And you are showing your igorance again by attributing it to absobtion
of light by pavement. The major cause is the reradiated heat from
buildings. Oh but that doesn't fit your theory, as building are better
insulated today this would reduce the effect.

>Taking the data at face value, most of the supposed warming occurred
>before 1940 when the uncertainties in the data are the worst, the
>increase in the heat island effect was probably the greatest, and
>embarrassingly, BEFORE most of the increase in CO2. The best data we

now the idiot is arguing against himself. Hint if the heat island
effect was greater prior to 1940 then we indead have a greater effect
of global warming than is commonly accepted.

>have for global temperature by far come from satellites. We have that
>data for the last 19 years, and they show a slight cooling over that

wrong, there are several reasons to assume satellite data is
inaccurate. to see a reasonable discussion of all the effects go to
www.globalchange.org/sciall/97sep4/htm.
After correcting for the effects of volcanoes the data shows a
slight warming trend.
But steve's whole tripe here is sorta like argueing what happens
when you put an extra blanket on the bed. If you are under the
blankets you get warming if you are atop the blankets you get colder.

>period (hence the statement from Rush and other commentators that there
>is no global warming).

lush is a fucking idiot on more than just scientific matters.

>For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/

>B: It is often said in the mass media that CO2 is the most important
>greenhouse gas. This is flatly false. It is not even clear it is an
>important factor in global temperature. Water vapor accounts for about
>98% of the greenhouse effect (without which the earth would be a frozen
>waste). All other greenhouse gases account for only 2%, and of them CO2
>is the most important. However, it is not clear how much, if at all,
>changes in CO2 levels would effect global temperature because the action

have you now magically repealed the laws of naturre? Are you saying
that CO2 will not absorb the same wavelenghts of light in the presence
of water vapor?

>of water vapor is complex (temperature affects water vapor levels,
>clouds cool the earth during the day, warm it at night, etc.). The
>action of water vapor cannot be satisfactorily modeled currently, i.e.
>uncertainty in the computer models on water vapor dwarf any effect
>calculated for changes in CO2.

simply not true, but then everyone except an idiot knows that th
models used are currently evolving and provide a reasonable forecast.

>C: Man's production of CO2 is a small percentage of natural CO2

an out right lie. The burning of fossil fuels in ten year releases as
much carbon as the atmosphere contains. In other words the burning of
fossil fules in 1 year is equivalent to 10% of the carbon i the
atmosphere.

>production. The notion is that sources and sinks of CO2 were in balance
>and man's admittedly small addition to CO2 sources tipped that delicate

As there are sources and sinks for carbon, but from the build up of
CO2 in the atmo, it would appear that the sinks may be already
overwhelmed.

>balance in favor of ever increasing levels of CO2. It is to laugh. If
>there is any that is clear from our studies of the environment it is
>that there is nothing "delicate" about the "balance" of nature, on CO2

once again you insist on making an idiot of yourself. The simple
example is extinct species as an example of how fragile the balance
really is.

>or anything else. In any case, our quantitative understanding of the
>CO2 cycle is not good enough for the belief that man caused the recent
>increase in CO2 levels to be based on anything firmer than post hoc ergo

you made the claim to back it up while the rest of us sit back and
laugh. There are no natural sources of CO2 to account for the
increase in CO2. But please feel free to amuse us.

>prompter hoc and (an unjustified) faith in the power of mankind.

>Because of the theory of global warming, it is now popular among greens
>to refer to CO2 as a pollutant. This is absurd. CO2 is breathed by

it is

>plants and is necessary for life. The increased levels of CO2 have made

yup its required for plant life just as a trace of Se is reuired in
your diet. But then at greater concentrations Se becomes extremely
posionous.

>plants more productive, which is a very good thing.

Not correct. Studies have shown that with increasing CO2 concentration
that species of weeds become the dominate plant life. Other studies
have shown that with increases of CO2 that plants become less
nutrionous(more fiberous).

>D: The notion that C caused A is based on computer models. It is
>important to understand just how poor these models are. If you start

first the models are not the underlieing theory behind global warming.
The theories of quantum, light/matter ineraction and thermo are the
basis for global warming. As of yet I doubt you have the ability to
repeal anyone of them.
And the reality of the models is that they are pretty damn good and
are continuing to evolve into models that are more accurate.

>with present condition and work backwards, they do not predict the known
>past. If you start with past conditions, you don't get the present,
>and always the direction of the error is in predicting too much warming
>for increased CO2. So why do we suddenly believe these models when we
>run them into the future? Again, the output of these models is not just
>a single number, as it is almost always given in main stream media, but
>a calculated prediction, AND an error band, the calculated uncertainty
>in the prediction. Well, the reason for this is clear, the uncertainty
>in the prediction dwarfs the predicted increase. Literally, according
>to the models, increased CO2 levels could result in significantly LOWER
>global temperatures (because of possible changes in cloud cover, etc.).

as usual you are telling some whoppers here.

>For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

>E: It is not at all clear that increased global temperatures would be
>bad for man or life in general. It could, in fact, be very good. Based
>on our current understanding it is just as likely that increased
>temperatures would make the climates milder, storms less severe, and

bullshit. Ya some climates may become milder but then there is the
risk for tropical disease to spread into these now mild climates.
Hardly an advantage.

>drop ocean levels or leave them unchanged. The reason for this is that
>there is reason to believe that increased AVERAGE temperature could
>manifest itself not as higher highs, but as warmer lows at night.

more bullshit logic, so the night time temps are warming there is less
cooling therfore the waters in the ocean warms, and with that warming
comes thermo expansion and rising sea levels.

>Storms are driven by temperature contrasts, and this should decrease
>storm severity. And warmer lows wouldn't necessarily result in a

once again logic fails the little dittoblot. Alright so the night time
temps are warmer, now we input the same amount of energy what happens.
The day time temps rise. So steve we can add logic to the list of
subjects that you don't understand as well.

>smaller net ice pack at the poles.

So you are ignoring the already thinning of the polar caps? and the
melting of the permafrost?

>F: Even if A through E were all true, it is not at all clear that the
>most reasonable response is to cut CO2 production. The economy greatly

since CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas the only logical
approach is to reduce the emission of it.

>depends on the burning of fossil fuels and other CO2 producing
>materials. Cutting down would be extremely costly, and there are a

there are many options available to cut it, biomass fuels, solar,
wind, etc... But these methods have one thing in common they all
collect enegry from diffuse sources. And since the greedheads running
the corporations cannot buy up the sources there is precious little
reseach or efforts being expended in these areas. Instead the
greedheads that control the flow of money are having government
research directed to useless research that will enable them to stay in
power.

>number of cheaper, high tech options. In November 1997 issue of REASON,
>the cover story is devoted to some of these (the story is available on
>the web at: http://www.reasonmag.com/9711/fe.benford.html). My
>favorite: the Geritol solution. Plankton growth in the cold waters of
>the Pacific are limited primarily by a shortage of the trace mineral
>iron. A relatively inexpensive program of fertilizing these waters with
>iron could so increase plankton growth that CO2 levels could be reduced

deliberate polluting of an environemnt has never worked well. The
longterm effect of that would lead to the same result that is common
in shallow midwest lakes. You get a huge algae bloom, then it dies off
and the next thing is as the algae deacys you get botulism. But even
then you have failed to remove the CO2 for any significant lenght of
time.

>(or man's contributions consumed). This would have the added benefit of
>making the oceans more productive for things like salmon.

unless sound logging practices are put into place in the Northwest,
salmon are in serious trouble.

>When the weaknesses of the global warming theory are acknowledged, the
>usual response by the greens is to rhetorically ask, "Can we afford to
>wait? What if the theory is right?" Well, these are answerable
>questions, and the answer is not, "We must act now." The same models
>that predict we have a problem can be used to assess the costs and risks
>for waiting, say ten years. This has been done, and the costs are small

funny how you claim that the models are too inaccurate from sound
practices to be put in place but now claim that they can give accurate
economic forecasts?

>compared to the huge costs of cutting CO2 production now. A more
>sensible question would be, "Can we afford to act now? What if the
>theory is wrong?"

the theory is not wrong as the effidence is pilling up on the side of
the theory.

>For more on this subject, especially the junk science associated with
>the theory of global warming, I recommend http://www.junkscience.com.

that site is nothing more than more babbling
for the real stories check a few of these sites.
www.epa.gov/globalwarming
www.globalchange.org
www.ciesin.org/TG/LU/LU-home-html
www.gcrio.org

>Search locally for articles on global warming. Those pushing the
>global warming theory claim the mantel of science, but it is clear it is
>not science that is driving the movement. It is ridiculous that we

unfortunately you are right on this point. Its corporate welfare and
influence that is delaying any action. So take a trip to these sites
to see how the greedheads are buying your future.
www.ozone.org/page16.html,
www.ozone.org/page13.html
www.ozone.org/ties3.html
www.ozone.org/page17.html
www.ozone.org/page18.html
www.envirolink.org/isues/corporate/welfare
www.foe.org/eco/Eco.html

>should even think about signing the UN charter on global warming.

>[1] "Holes in the Greenhouse Effect" by Patrick J. Michaels, Washington
>Post, Sunday June 22, 1997 page C02 or
>http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
>--
>ste...@hevanet.com I am the NRA Steven R. Fordyce
> -- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? --

===================================================================
Parkie expounding on global warming:
>hundred years, when there are known weather trends that encompass
>thousands of years.

hmmm, Now I wonder where the record came from for that trend?
gdy weasel

=====================================================================

[Michael Tobis]

Steven Hales (sha...@pipeline.com) wrote:

: I note at this point that

: observations seem to be overwhelming traditional theory but no reasonable
: substitute theory has emerged.

This is nonsense. What seems to be "overwhelming" theory in some circles is
mantralike repetition about a *few* outlying sources of information. When
the IPCC says "the balance of evidence indicates a discernible human
influence", they mean precisely the contrary of Hales' assertion.

As a matter of fact the first order global sensitivity as a function of
ongoing anthropogenic perturbation is verging on settled, and is certainly
no longer uncertain by a factor of two. The job of physical climatology
now becomes determining local impacts and identifying long time scale
nonlinearities.

I have no polite way of characterizing the claim that observations
overwhelmingly contradict climatological theory. I will settle for the
vast understatement that this assertion is incorrect.

mt

[Steven Hales]

Michael Tobis wrote in message <66k868$n...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
>Steven Hales (sha...@pipeline.com) wrote:
>
>: I note at this point that

>: observations seem to be overwhelming traditional theory but no reasonable
>: substitute theory has emerged.
>

>This is nonsense. What seems to be "overwhelming" theory in some circles is
>mantralike repetition about a *few* outlying sources of information. When
>the IPCC says "the balance of evidence indicates a discernible human
>influence", they mean precisely the contrary of Hales' assertion.
>
>As a matter of fact the first order global sensitivity as a function of
>ongoing anthropogenic perturbation is verging on settled, and is certainly
>no longer uncertain by a factor of two. The job of physical climatology
>now becomes determining local impacts and identifying long time scale
>nonlinearities.
>
>I have no polite way of characterizing the claim that observations
>overwhelmingly contradict climatological theory. I will settle for the
>vast understatement that this assertion is incorrect.
>
>mt
>

Michael sputters a bit here. He assures us that the human signal has
absolutely been detected but he doesn't address the more important issues of
ad-hoc gap filling that climatology has utilized to force theory into
compliance with observation. These ad-hoc gap fillings have not added to
our understanding of climate but have only served to shore up theories
regarding poorly understood processes. See the post he replied to for
details

[Mike Alexander]

Rheuddog wrote:
>
> The earth's temp has gone down by 1 degree in the last 20 years.
> Explain this, please.

Where did you get this information? The data I have seen shows an
increase of ca. 0.2 C over the last 20 years. The entire change from
the 1880's was on the order of a +1 degree or so in the graph I saw in a
recent Chemical and Engineering News.

[Onar Aam]

> Look at the data Onar... Here it is...

[snip]

Yes, it's a nice dataset, but that's all it is. It shows that there has
been climate change on earth, but it does not attribute that change to
any cause. One proposed mechanism is greenhouse warming, but another
equally supported hypthesis is the sun theory by the Danish scientists
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. In fact, as of today the evidence for
the sun theory is better than the evidence for the greenhouse theory.
They've provided a mechanism and they've shown that it closely
corresponds to observed weather patterns. So in fact, the data you
showed me is really just a reflection of the fact that the magnetic field
of the sun has become increasingly stronger this last century. For the
actual scientific article, see:

www.elsevier.com/section/earth/geo/jastp/atp740.pdf

This of course does not negate the greenhouse effect, but it does show
that the warming in the last 150 years is caused by the sun, not by
greenhouse gases.

Onar.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Steven Hales (sha...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: Michael Tobis wrote in message <66k868$n...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
: >This is nonsense. What seems to be "overwhelming" theory in some circles is

: >mantralike repetition about a *few* outlying sources of information. When
: >the IPCC says "the balance of evidence indicates a discernible human
: >influence", they mean precisely the contrary of Hales' assertion.
: >
: >As a matter of fact the first order global sensitivity as a function of
: >ongoing anthropogenic perturbation is verging on settled, and is certainly
: >no longer uncertain by a factor of two. The job of physical climatology
: >now becomes determining local impacts and identifying long time scale
: >nonlinearities.

: Michael sputters a bit here. He assures us that the human signal has
: absolutely been detected ...

Hales is attempting a Sigurdsson ploy here. Where exactly did Tobis assure
us that the human signal has absolutely been detected? I read over Tobis'
post and didn't see anything resembling those words; did Hales imagine them?

: but he doesn't address the more important issues of
: ad-hoc gap filling that climatology has utilized to force theory into

: compliance with observation. These ad-hoc gap fillings have not added to
: our understanding of climate but have only served to shore up theories
: regarding poorly understood processes. See the post he replied to for
: details

Maybe I'll try a Sigurdsson ploy myself: Hales assures us that climatology
is worthless and that no models can be trusted. But that makes him
sound foolish, doesn't it?

As for the substance of discussion of flux corrections and the rest, Tobis
and others have gone over it so many times that he might well sputter. Is
it your position that we should refuse to model until we have the technical
capability to model everything that might be important? And, more basically,
what exactly is the "theory" that you keep referring to? Radiative physics?

[Andrew Russell]

Steven Hales wrote:
> But in the climate change debate there are
>those on the dissenting side who have argued for more certainity than can
>exist.

False. The 'dissenters' have argued for SOME certainty. There is no
correlation whatsoever between the fearmongers claims of looming global
apocalypse and real data. There is no correlation between the computer
models that say we have had global warming and the actual temperature
record.

There is no honest justification for draconian taxes, massive energy
rationing, and eco-war upon the poor that is being demanded in Kyoto.

Anyone with an open mind and a commitment to science should look at these
web sites:

www.his.com/~sepp
www.vision.net.au/~daly
www.nhes.com
www.junkscience.com

Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com

[Andrew Russell]

Jay Hanson wrote:
>
>For the record Alway, You are a lying son of a bitch.
>

For the record, Jay Hanson claims that nuclear power plants can explode:

Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On 10 Dec 1997 04:51:28 GMT, Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com>
commanded the electrons to form this message:

>Jay Hanson wrote:

>>For the record Alway, You are a lying son of a bitch.

>For the record, Jay Hanson claims that nuclear power plants can explode:

_Exactly_ how does he claim this could happen?
--

"There is a time and a place for tact.(And there are
times when tact is entirely misplaced.)"
Laurence van Cott Niven

[Anders Jelmert]

Onar Aam <on...@hsr.no> wrote in article <66kh2l$n4e$2...@snipp.uninett.no>...

>
> > Look at the data Onar... Here it is...
>

> [snip]
>
> Yes, it's a nice dataset, but that's all it is.

If you'll excuse me for interrrupting, it isn't even that. Allthough Scott
provides
a t value for 1867, the graph lacks axis value on the dependent variable,
and is
almost useless.

> It shows that there has
> been climate change on earth, but it does not attribute that change to
> any cause.

It shows that year global temperature index has increased since 1867.
Could someone please elucidate the nature of this YGTI? Does it include
sea surface temperatures (SST) and lower troposphere, or is it the integral
of global land temperatures?

> One proposed mechanism is greenhouse warming, but another
> equally supported hypthesis is the sun theory by the Danish scientists
> Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. In fact, as of today the evidence for
> the sun theory is better than the evidence for the greenhouse theory.
> They've provided a mechanism and they've shown that it closely
> corresponds to observed weather patterns. So in fact, the data you
> showed me is really just a reflection of the fact that the magnetic field
> of the sun has become increasingly stronger this last century. For the
> actual scientific article, see:
>
> www.elsevier.com/section/earth/geo/jastp/atp740.pdf
>
>
> This of course does not negate the greenhouse effect, but it does show
> that the warming in the last 150 years is caused by the sun, not by
> greenhouse gases.

Perhaps more specifically, it is more in accordance with the observed data:

A) The predicition of the "antrophogenic greenhouse theory" is a
heating of the atmosphere. Based on the avilable sattelite and
ballon data, this does not seem to happen.
B) The predictions from a teory of higher sun luminosity would be
increased land surface temperatures and SST.
I have the impression that the temperature increase usually
presented in the "greenhouse-debate" is land surface temperature.
The SST have been shown to follow the secular variance in solar
irradiance strikingly well (Reid and Gage, 1988).

The present data does IMHO give much more support to the
latter theory. It has better explanatory power, if you like.
>
> Onar.
>
>

Ref.
Reid, G.C and Gage, K.S., 1988. The climatic impact of secular
variations in solar irradiance. In: Stephenson, F.R. and Wolfendale,
A.W. (eds.), "Secular Solar and Geomagnetic Variations in the last
10,000 Years". Kluver Academic Publishers, 225-243

In Cod we trust
Cassanders

[Steinn Sigurdsson]

ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:

> Maybe I'll try a Sigurdsson ploy myself: Hales assures us that climatology

Ah Rich, you shouldn't - you know what fools people make of themselves
on the Net when they try something they are not competent to do.

You should stick to character assassination attempts, it is all
you are capable of doing without sputtering.

[Michael Tobis]

Steven Hales (sha...@pipeline.com) wrote:

: Michael Tobis wrote in message <66k868$n...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...

: >Steven Hales (sha...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: >
: >: I note at this point that
: >: observations seem to be overwhelming traditional theory but no reasonable
: >: substitute theory has emerged.

Perhaps I misunderstood. When you say "overwhelming" do you mean that
observations are *inconsistent* with theory? The proposal that the theory
has been tweaked with too many knobs seems to be what your essay addresses.

In fact, it's an interesting essay, and identifying why it doesn't
particularly apply to the policy-relevant results of contemporary
climatology is a subtle question. (I believe that it does not.)
However, in my first skimming of the material I responded to the
offending sentence above. Do you stand by this sentence? What did you
mean by it?

I can't get to the details this week, but you have definitely misunderstood
the flux corrections issue, and your attack on sulphate aerosol forcing
as ad hoc strikes me as very weak. Regarding Lindzen's theory, the grapevine
that I have heard on this was that the observations indicated the contrary,
but I'm not aware of a refereed publication to either direction. Regarding
the solar variability folks, they have not made a coherent case why solar
forcing should be more effective per watt than greenhouse forcing.
As for Hoyt, we must await review and publication of the details of his
analysis. It seems unlikely that he will overturn the consensus on the
historical record, but he should be given a chance. However, this is
unlikely to change the best estimates of linear sensitivity, and he would
be well advised to remove such claims if he seeks formal reviewed publication.

Your suggestion that none of this has been fairly discussed in this newsgroup
or in the literature is an unsupportable one.

The embarassing fact is that the problem of global sensitivity to global
anthropogenic forcing is solved within a factor of two or so. Neither the
policy sector nor the scientific sector wants to admit this, but as far as the
policy impact goes, it's time to let climatology return to its former
obscurity and focus on economics, biology, geochemistry and social sciences.

mt

[Harold]

On 10 Dec 1997 01:44:47 GMT, ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) wrote:

[edited]

>
>As for the substance of discussion of flux corrections and the rest, Tobis
>and others have gone over it so many times that he might well sputter. Is
>it your position that we should refuse to model until we have the technical
>capability to model everything that might be important?

That is an interesting thought. But I don't think it makes any sense
to stop attempting to model until you reached the point where you

"have the technical capability to model everything that might be

important".

But I do think that we should stop trying to use the models to drive
policy decisions until you can model everything that might be
important, don't you?

After all, if you admit that we do not know even "everything that
might be important", there must be some really serious doubt that the
models are correct. Don't you think?

Regards, Harold
----
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up
some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each
of us has to decide the right balance between being
effective, and being honest.
--- Dr Stephen Schneider

[Steve Schulin]

Hi Dave -

If Mike McCurry's job as President Clinton's press secretary ever comes
open, you really ought to apply for the job -- and be sure to send along
a copy of your message about the Robinsons' article as an example of the
type of job you'd do! That bunch needs ad hominum spouting trashmouths to
avoid dealing with honest debate.

In article <348b4f6c...@news.atl.mindspring.com>, dst...@wgst.com wrote:

> [The Wall Street Journal] published an IDIOTIC article last week about

> GW written by a couple of morons from the "Institute for Science and

> Medicine" in Oregon? These two SHITs put forth the most moronic

> claptrap I've ever seen!
>

> I guess you believe them...Is everything you read, or hear on rush
> limbaugh a fact?
>
>

> Stupid shit...

[char...@hal-pc.org]

In article <66l74e$e...@lotho.delphi.com>,

Good posting. The statistics and linear regression
techniques that I have been taught say that there should be
*some* agreement between individual data points and a
postulated trend line. This not only makes common sense, it
is a mathematical requirement is one is to demonstrate a
probably cause and effect relationship. Unfortunately, I
just received a personal email reply from Don Libby regarding
the fact that a study he cited noted little or no correlation
between CO2/aerosol data and global warming. Funny thing -
this implies that either there is no correlation, or any
changes haven't been large enough to emerge from the noise in
the data.

If you postulate a theory, then strongly believe the theory
before going through the mathematical and statistical steps
to prove the theory, why claim that there is a scientific
basis for the theory? If the belief in the theory is based
totally on faith that it *must* be correct, it has moved out
of the realm of science and become a religion.

[Paul D. Farrar]

On 10 Dec 1997 17:13:04 GMT, to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
wrote:

...

>as ad hoc strikes me as very weak. Regarding Lindzen's theory, the grapevine
>that I have heard on this was that the observations indicated the contrary,
>but I'm not aware of a refereed publication to either direction. Regarding

I posted a number in an earlier post, Message-ID:
<34779238...@news.datasync.com>
Which was buried deep in a fairly boring thread. Of course the huge
number of posts with Lindzen's name in the title don't have anything
to do with him. The ones I listed were:

Pros:
Lindzen, 1990. BAMS, 71, 288-299.
Lindzen, 1994. Ann Rev of Fluid Mech, 26, 353-378.
Sun & Lindzen, J Atm Sci, 50, 1643-1660. [This one I haven't read.]

Cons:
Rind et al., 1991. Nature, 349, 500-503.
Soden & Fu, 1995. J Clim, 8, #10, 2333-2351.
Soden, 1997. J Clim, 10, #5, 1050-1055.
Kley et al., 1997. Quart. J of Royal Met Soc, 123 #543, 2009-2040.

Sorry for the lack of titles, my fingers were getting tired at the
time. I have an additional one:

Salathe, Eric P. and Dennis L. Hartmann, 1997. A trajectory analysis
of Tropical Upper-Troposphere Moisture and Convection, _J. Clim., 10_,
#10, 2533-2547.

These have quite a variety of different types of study. The ones that
don't have Lindzen's name on them all take care to point out how their
observations don't agree with Lindzen's hypothesis that increased
convection will dry the low latitude troposphere, providing a negative
feedback. There are probably more, but these are just the ones I've
stumbled onto without really looking for them. I haven't seen any that
support his hypothesis with observations, other than his own papers,
but there could be some.

The new BS line, if you haven't noticed it, is that the tropical
troposphere "has been discovered to be much drier than previously
thought." The above papers are a pretty good antidote for that claim.

...
>mt

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

[Scott Nudds]

Andrew Russell (arus...@BIX.com) wrote:
: For the record, Jay Hanson claims that nuclear power plants can explode:

And Chornobyl proves that he is correct.

[Greig Ebeling]

On 9 Dec 1997 02:38:03 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:

> We don't see much reasoned thinking on these subjects by the denialist
>crowd, we don't see much learning. What we see are the same old refuted
>arguments repeatedly presented by the same scientific illiterate ditto
>heads.

Hey Nuddsy. Tell us again how solar power is going to save the world.

[snip]

> Look at the data Onar... Here it is...
>
>
> Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42)
>
> 1867 ....*

[snip]

You have neglected to show the horizontal scale. You have also failed
to mention the data source. And you also fail yet again to realise
that a correlation between a rise in temperature and an increase in
CO2 does not necessarily mean a causal relationship.

Your persistent adherence to an opinion, rather than looking at all
possibilities, shows to all your lack of objectivity and scientific
credibility.

...Greig

[Isak Lytting]

Hey ho.

Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article
<348bfa02....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...

> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 01:42:17 GMT, dst...@wgst.com (Dave Stone) wrote:

>> I guess you believe them...Is everything you read, or hear on rush
>> limbaugh a fact?

> I really must commend your command of logic. You have managed to get
> several logical fallacies in one comment.
>
> First, you have several instances of ad hominem attacks. First
> against some scientists, then about the pervious poster.

Since when is an ad hominem attack a "logical fallacy"? Perhaps he just
thinks
the Washington Post is a waste of paper and that John Alway is a monumental
creep. There is nothing illogical about that. Each person has to make up
his own
mind for himself. Nothing is written in stone.

> Finally, you have tried to smear the poster with a derogatory
> association with Rush Limbaugh.

Perhaps if John Alway should one day compare himself with Rush Limbaugh,
he would appreciate the association.

>> Stupid shit...
> Now, you get repetitive.

Some things just can't be said too often.

> You have already got an ad hominem attack on the poster. Did you think
your
> readers are too stupid to notice?

I see nothing wrong with making one's feelings public. If I am talking
about
Hitler, for instance, I don't feel any particular compulsion to speak in a
polite
language. Nor should I.

If you, personally, have some fears about revealing your emotions in a
direct
way, that is your own business. But maybe your anger with Dave Stone is
a case of "projection," as it is known in psychobabble?

> When will you have a comment to post that has a reasoned argument?

Life is not always reasonable. It is only fear which causes people to need
everything to be rational. Truth is an illusion.

> Do you know any?

This is an ad hominem attack. But I will defend your right to make such an
attack any day of the week..Hiding one's true feelings and fears behind
scientific rationalizations is silly and is an indication of immaturity.

Have a nice day.

--
Isak S. Lytting
dko...@vip.cybercity.dk

[Steven Hales]

Isak Lytting wrote in message
<01bd0628$a460aea0$f78a...@IsakSLytting.cybercity.dk>...

>Hey ho.
>
>
>Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article
><348bfa02....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 01:42:17 GMT, dst...@wgst.com (Dave Stone) wrote:
>
> >> I guess you believe them...Is everything you read, or hear on rush
> >> limbaugh a fact?
> > I really must commend your command of logic. You have managed to get
> > several logical fallacies in one comment.
> >
> > First, you have several instances of ad hominem attacks. First
> > against some scientists, then about the pervious poster.
>
>Since when is an ad hominem attack a "logical fallacy"?

Since the dawn of logical argument. An ad hominem argument on global
warming goes something like this, "If you are so fired up about global
warming, why do you still drive to work, why not walk? Obviously, you can
talk the talk but you can't walk the walk." The fact that someone may be
legimately concerned about global warming is not logically refuted by their
lifestyle it is not even evidence of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be asking
everyone else to give up their cars and then driving to work yourself.

[snip]

Regards,

Steve
>

[Harold]

On 11 Dec 1997 11:34:41 GMT, "Isak Lytting" <ilyt...@dk-online.dk>
wrote:

>Hey ho.
>
>
>Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article
><348bfa02....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 01:42:17 GMT, dst...@wgst.com (Dave Stone) wrote:
>
> >> I guess you believe them...Is everything you read, or hear on rush
> >> limbaugh a fact?
> > I really must commend your command of logic. You have managed to get
> > several logical fallacies in one comment.
> >
> > First, you have several instances of ad hominem attacks. First
> > against some scientists, then about the pervious poster.
>
>Since when is an ad hominem attack a "logical fallacy"?

Perhaps you need to read a book on logic, though a dictionary may do:

ad hominem
ad hominem (hòm´e-nèm´, -nem) adjective
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Columbia
University Press.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold
----
"Activists have learned to dismiss those whose
arguments he cannot counter by attacking their integrity,
thereby warning off not only other researchers, but
warning off other journalists not to cover those stories."
--- David Murray, Oct. 9, 1997, in
"Media Coverage and Global Warming: Is There a Problem?"

[Ralph]

In article <348fcf17...@203.12.1.9>, Greig Ebeling
<egg...@sydney.dialix.oz.au> writes

>On 9 Dec 1997 02:38:03 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>

>> We don't see much reasoned thinking on these subjects by the denialist
>>crowd, we don't see much learning. What we see are the same old refuted
>>arguments repeatedly presented by the same scientific illiterate ditto
>>heads.
>

>Hey Nuddsy. Tell us again how solar power is going to save the world.
>

Hey Greig, tell us again how all nuke industries are well run and safe
because the Aussie one is

>Your persistent adherence to an opinion, rather than looking at all
>possibilities, shows to all your lack of objectivity and scientific
>credibility.
>

I don't remember your style being any different

--
Ralph

"L'auto, ca pue, ca tue et ca pollue"

[John Alway]

"Isak Lytting" <ilyt...@dk-online.dk>

>Hey ho.

Around the world we go.

>Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article
<348bfa02....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 01:42:17 GMT, dst...@wgst.com (Dave Stone) wrote:

> >> I guess you believe them...Is everything you read, or hear on rush
> >> limbaugh a fact?
> > I really must commend your command of logic. You have managed to get
> > several logical fallacies in one comment.
>
> > First, you have several instances of ad hominem attacks. First
> > against some scientists, then about the pervious poster.

>Since when is an ad hominem attack a "logical fallacy"?

Ad hominem attacks go to the man, instead of the
argument. Dave Stone is unwilling to deal with the
facts underlying arguments. My arguments are far
from stupid, and _this_ is what bothers Mr. Stone.

>Perhaps he just
>thinks
>the Washington Post is a waste of paper and that John Alway is a monumental
>creep. There is nothing illogical about that. Each person has to make up
>his own mind for himself.

I believe he was referring to the Wall Street Journal, and
it is quite possible he believes me a "monumental creep", but
if an individual has a thinking process like David Stone's then
it is hard to take their conclusions seriously. Can you think
of a reason why a one should?

> Nothing is written in stone.

Are you saying there are no absolutes? Do you realize that's
a contradictory statement?

> > Finally, you have tried to smear the poster with a derogatory
> > association with Rush Limbaugh.

>Perhaps if John Alway should one day compare himself with Rush Limbaugh,
>he would appreciate the association.

Rush Limbaugh isn't a bad guy. I do, however, have fundamental
differences with him on fundamental issues. I'm not a conservative,
for one.

> >> Stupid shit...
> > Now, you get repetitive.

>Some things just can't be said too often.

And I just look at the process that arrives at that
conclusion.

> > You have already got an ad hominem attack on the poster. Did you think
>your
> > readers are too stupid to notice?

>I see nothing wrong with making one's feelings public. If I am talking
>about
>Hitler, for instance, I don't feel any particular compulsion to speak in a
>polite
>language. Nor should I.

Those who place emotion before thought are very much mimicing
Hitlerian epistemology. Are you aware of that?

It is the men of reason in history that I admire most, i.e.
Jefferson, Aristotle, Newton, Locke, Huygens, et al.
The best and most benevolent men in history were men of
reason.

>If you, personally, have some fears about revealing your emotions in a
>direct
>way, that is your own business. But maybe your anger with Dave Stone is
>a case of "projection," as it is known in psychobabble?

His disappointment (I saw no anger) with Stone was with his
mindlessness.

> > When will you have a comment to post that has a reasoned argument?

>Life is not always reasonable. It is only fear which causes people to need
>everything to be rational. Truth is an illusion.

_Truth_ is an illusion? What is an illusion?

> > Do you know any?

>This is an ad hominem attack. But I will defend your right to make such an
>attack any day of the week..Hiding one's true feelings and fears behind
>scientific rationalizations is silly and is an indication of immaturity.

Actually, given the content of Stone's postings, it's a legitimate
question. He's basically shaking him by the lapels and saying
"wake up, man!" It is a gesture of goodwill, in effect.

...John

[Adrian Jones]

The correct term for this is teleology - I personally feel that the
issue of global warming has been hijacked by people with opposing
viewpoints. However, just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it
isn't happening - ie. before the invention of the microscope, we could
not see bacteria, and had to invent other reasons for the diseases
which afflicted the population. I think we should neither condemn
something out of hand, nor endorse it wholeheartedly.
But that is rather a Liberal answer, isn't it?

Adrian Jones.

[Dave Stone]

Rheuddog <rds...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com> wrotf:

>Dave,
>
>You are so progressive and rational! Your mom must be real proud. I
>listened to some dude on NPR Science Friday yesterday and he said point
>blank in response to a "mad skeptic" caller, "yes, there are many
>uncertainties within our theories but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act
>now to avert future disasters."

Tell me - If a tornado is bearing down on your general vicinity, would
you wait until you are certain it was going to hit you before running
away or hiding? Do you have insurance? Do you wear a seatbelt?

People want to wait until they are "certain". THAT MAY BE TOO LATE.

>
>I am not a Limbaugh-Conspiracy Theorist.

You sound like one.

> Yes, I listen to NPR, read the
>New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly, blah, blah, blah. There are
>many 'scientists' who have noted impressive evidence against this Global
>Warming Religion. Most notably, the MIT professor (forget his name)
>who was recently profiled in the NYT of all places.

The MIT prof is a certified luney, according to many of his
co-workers. He is also a geologist, and knows next to nothing about
GW.

>
>On said NPR program, they spent 20 minutes discussing cows and methane
>gases. Yes, they were proposing various ways to cut back on our
>dependence on cows: cows are one of the top producers of this greenhouse
>gas, ya know.

You sound doubtful - they ARE.

>
>This is lunacy, Dave. Relax a little and study the correlation between
>the earth's climate and the sun's magnetic fluctuations. Is it not
>possible that the increase in carbon is responsible for the documented
>increase in foliage density, thereby counteracting the negative effects?

Yes it is possible. It is also possible that the waters of the
atlantic will cool and waste europe.

>
>I am contemplating a conversion to Conspiracy Theorist because none of
>these contrary voices are discussed in the 'mainstream' except on
>occaision or in the Wall Streest Journal.

You'l fill in nicely.

>
>The earth's temp has gone down by 1 degree in the last 20 years.
>Explain this, please.

That is erroneous

>
>With Love,
>
>Bryan
>

Sorry, I'm already taken.

[mcr...@northernnet.com]

In article <66em9o$vc$1...@news.gstis.net>,
"Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>
> John Alway wrote in message <348A20...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...
>
> > For the record, there were many Nobel prize winners
> > who signed the Heidelberg Appeal concerned with
> > out of control environmentalism.

>
> For the record Alway, You are a lying son of a bitch.
>

> WORLD SCIENTISTS' CALL FOR ACTION AT THE KYOTO CLIMATE SUMMIT
>
> Five years ago, in the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity,
> 1600 of the world's senior scientists sounded an unprecedented
> warning:
>
> Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible
> damage on the environment and on critical resources. If
> not checked, many of our current practices put at serious
> risk the future that we wish for human society and the
> plant and animal kingdoms.
>
> Big SNIP>
>
> Selected Prominent Signatories to the World Scientists' Call for
> Action at the Kyoto Climate Summit
>
> NOBEL LAUREATES
>
> * Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
> * Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
> * Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
> * David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
> * Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
> * Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
> * Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
> * J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
> * James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
> * Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
> * Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
> * Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
> * Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
> * Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
> * John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
> * James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
> * Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
> * Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
> * Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
> * Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
> * Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
> * Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
> * Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
> * Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
> * Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
> * Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
> * Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
> * Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
> * Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
> * Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
> * Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
> * Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
> * Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
> * Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
> * Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
> * Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
> * Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
> * Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
> * David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
> * Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
> * Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
> * Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
> * John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
> * Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
> * Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
> * Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
> * Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
> * Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
> * Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
> * David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
> * Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
> * Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
> * Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
> * Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
> * Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
> * William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
> * Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
> * Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
> * R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
> * Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
> * Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
> * Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
> * Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
> * Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
> * Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
> * Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
> * Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
> * Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
> * Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
> * Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
> * George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
> * Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
> * John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
> * Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
> * Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
> * Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
> * Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
> * Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
> * Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
> * Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
> * F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
> * Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
> * Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
> * Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
> * Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
> * Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
> * Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
> * Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
> * Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
> * Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
> * Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
> * E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
> * Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
> * James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
> * Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
> * Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
> * Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
> * John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
> * Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
> * Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
> * Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
> * Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996
>
> CRAFOORD LAUREATES
> * Vladimir I. Arnold, France. Mathematics 1982
> * Paul R. Ehrlich, USA. Biosciences 1990
> * Daniel H. Janzen, USA. Biosciences 1990
> * Eugene P. Odum, USA. Biosciences 1987
> * Edward O. Wilson, USA. Biosciences 1990
>
> SELECTED OFFICERS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
> ACADEMIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
> * Carlos Aguirre, President, Bolivian Academy of Sciences
> * Jorge Eduardo Allende, Former President, Chilean Academy of
> Sciences
> * A. Andreev, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
> * Sir Michael Atiyah, Former President, The Royal Society (UK)
> * Francisco J. Ayala, Former President, American Association for
> the Advancement of Science
> * Carl Gustaf Bernhard, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy
> of Sciences
> * Bert Bolin, Former Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change Paulo C. Campos, Former President, Philippines National
> Academy of Science and Technology
> * Carlos Chagas, Former President, Latin American Academy of
> Sciences
> * Satish Dhawan, Former President, Indian Academy of Sciences
> * Johanna Dobereiner, Vice-President, Brazilian Academy of
> Sciences
> * Mahdi Elmandjra, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
> * T. Geoffrey Flynn, Vice-President, Royal Society of Canada
> * Fran?ois Gros, Permanent Secretary, French Academy of Sciences
> * Lars Gyllensten, Former Chair, The Nobel Foundation
> * Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy
> of Sciences
> * Robert Heap, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
> * Gunnar Hoppe, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of
> Sciences
> * Sir John Horlock, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
> * Carl-Olof Jacobsen, Former Secretary-General, Royal Swedish
> Academy of Sciences
> * Alf Johnels, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of
> Sciences
> * Triloki Nath Khoshoo, Former President, Indian National
> Academy of Sciences
> * Sir Aaron Klug, President, The Royal Society (UK)
> * Gustavo Kouri, Vice-President, Cuban Academy of Sciences
> * Torvard Laurent, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of
> Sciences
> * N. P. Laverov, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
> * Jane Lubchenco, Chair, American Association for the
> Advancement of Science
> * Digby McLaren, Former President, Royal Society of Canada
> * Hubert Markl, President, Max Planck Society
> * M. G. K. Menon, Former President, International Council of
> Scientific Unions
> * G. A. Mesiatz, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
> * Harold A. Mooney, Secretary General, International Council of
> Scientific Unions
> * Lawrence A. Mysak, Former President, Academy of Sciences of
> the Royal Society of Canada
> * Jan S. Nilsson, President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
> * Erling Norrby, Secretary General, Royal Swedish Academy of
> Sciences
> * Thomas Odhiambo, President, African Academy of Sciences
> * Gideon Okelo, Secretary General, African Academy of Sciences
> * Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Former President, Nigerian Academy
> of Sciences
> * Yuri S. Osipov, President, Russian Academy of Sciences
> * Abed Peeraly, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
> * Chintamani Rao, Vice-President, Third World Academy of
> Sciences
> * Peter H. Raven, Home Secretary, US National Academy of
> Sciences
> * R. S. Reneman, Chair, Science Division, Royal Netherlands
> Academy of Arts and Sciences
> * Igor Saavedra, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
> * Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza, Chair, Italian National
> Academy of Sciences
> * Arun Kumar Sharma, Founding President, Federation of Asian
> Scientific Academies and Societies
> * Jose Israel Vargas, President, Third World Academy of Sciences
> * Henrik Wallgren, President, Finnish Society of Sciences and
> Letters
> * Richard Willems, Vice-President, Estonian Academy of Sciences
> * Dongsheng Yan, Senior Adviser, Chinese Academy of Sciences
> * Guang-Zhao Zhou, President, Third World Academy of Sciences
>
> ===========================
> Contact: Rich Hayes
> [1]rha...@ucsusa.org
> 202-332-0900
> [2]Union of Concerned Scientists
>
> Archived at: http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

Let's see, scientists, chemists, economists, physiologists, physics, but
absolutely no meteorologists or climatologists? A concensus of global
warming by those educated in other areas. And people wonder why there
are skeptics???

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[John Alway]

Dave Stone wrote:

> Rheuddog <rds...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com> wrotf:

[...]

> > Yes, I listen to NPR, read the
> >New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly, blah, blah, blah. There are
> >many 'scientists' who have noted impressive evidence against this Global
> >Warming Religion. Most notably, the MIT professor (forget his name)
> >who was recently profiled in the NYT of all places.

Listen, my exhortation is that you not try to justify yourself
to environmentalists. They do not care how right you are nor how
well read you are (Lindzen is the very best in the field, and look
how they treat him!) It's very important to realize that they have a
certain view and the facts are of utterly zero importance to them.
This is the way they behave time and time again. There comes
a point when you have to realize they really are that corrupt. It's
hard to deal with, I agree, but just look at them! There is
nothing more dangerous than unreasonable, factless people who rise
to power.

This is _not_ a scientific issue (I wish it were!) The very
"problem" has been entirely created out of whole cloth by
environmentalists, who absolutely lack objectivity (Al Gore
being the quintessential know nothing pushing this junk on high).
And, look, there are _real_ problems in the world worth spending
ones time on: cures for cancer, AIDS, paralysis, etc. etc.
These environmentalists are wasting our time and money and
costing countless lives both in terms of quality and quantity
because of their lies.

They use the cloak of science to give themselves feigned
esteem, but under that cloak is a dagger of death.

> The MIT prof is a certified luney, according to many of his
> co-workers. He is also a geologist, and knows next to nothing about
> GW.

And notice this poster's egregious lie. Ask yourself
what his motivation is. Who could possible stoop to
such a level?

Dr. Lindzen is a meteorologist, mathematician, and
physicist. He is one of the most brilliant in his field
of meteorology.

More on Dr. Lindzen:

http://www.jhuapl.edu/colloq/lindzenbio.htm

It should be noted that Dr. Singer is also a man who
has had a highly distinguished career as a scientist.
As have many of those who are opposed to these fear
mongers and their pseudoscience.

> >The earth's temp has gone down by 1 degree in the last 20 years.
> >Explain this, please.

> That is erroneous

The earth's temperature has gone down over the last
20 years, this is an uncontested fact. However, it
was by much less than a degree. I believe it was
around 0.2 C.

...John

[John Alway]

John Alway wrote:

[...]

> The earth's temperature has gone down over the last
> 20 years, this is an uncontested fact. However, it
> was by much less than a degree. I believe it was
> around 0.2 C.

Correction, that should be around - 0.02 C.

...John

[John Alway]

Adrian Jones wrote:

> The correct term for this is teleology - I personally feel that the
> issue of global warming has been hijacked by people with opposing
> viewpoints.

Not accurate. The issue of global warming has always been
an environmentalist tool for fear mongering from the
start. It's simply another in a long line of claims of
disasters that environmentalists are well known for.

Many people have been onto the environmental
movement for decades: Dr. Petr Beckmann and Ayn Rand
spring immediately to mind. I knew about the absurdity
of the global warming claims about ten years ago.

> However, just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it
> isn't happening -

It's worse than that we can't prove it. We can't
find _evidence_ for it.

> ie. before the invention of the microscope, we could
> not see bacteria, and had to invent other reasons for the diseases
> which afflicted the population. I think we should neither condemn
> something out of hand, nor endorse it wholeheartedly.
> But that is rather a Liberal answer, isn't it?

Not liberal in the classic sense. Liberals were men of
reason in days gone by. They would have been scientific
and reasoned in their approach.

...John

[Scott Nudds]

John Alway wrote:
: I'm talking about climatologists,
: and those in closely related fields. The best in those
: fields are not supporting this global warming fear
: mongering, because the evidence doesn't support it.

Where Conservative Extremist Alway defines "best" as those who mirror
his faith most closely.

Unfortunately denialists like Alway are not smart enough to realize
that the debate is over. Even the hand full of denialist scientists who
persist have now publicly admitted that global average temperature will
continue to rise.

The only people left denying the reality of global warming are
Extremist Conservatives for whom no physical evidence can overcome their
faith in their ignorant right wing political dogma, and oil/coal
industry shills who are paid to lie.

---
"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

Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42)

1867 ....*
1887 .......*
1897 ..........................*
1907 ...........*
1917 ............*
1927 ...............................*
1937 .......................................*
1947 .......................................*
1957 ......................................*
1967 ................................*
1977 .........................................*
1987 .................................................*
1997 .........................................................*
1997 - Hottest year on record.

--
<---->

[Scott Nudds]

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: At the other end of the debate (the civilized one) the real scientists (some
: of them on this newsgroup) have confused dissent with the majority opinion
: on climate change with an anti-science attitude.

I have yet to see anyone do this. I think Hales is trying to
manufacture something here.

What Hales confuses is dissent based on expertise, and dissent based
on political religion.

Those who object based on expertise are easy to identify, but very hard
to come by. Their objections contain science as their basis. Their
objections do not contain conspiratorialist mumbo jumbo. Their
objections do not consist of pronouncements of economic gloom and doom.
Their objections do not contain obvious irrelevancies and obvious
scientific error.

Once denialist messages like yours are submitted to the above filter,
they are easily identified as fraud - typically based on ignorance,
often contemptuous of science, and often conspiratorialist in nature.

There <have> been a hand full of messages posted on global warming that
have definitely appeared to be honest objections to the science.
Unfortunately they were drown out by the flagrant anti-scientific mumbo
jumbo that anti-environmentalist cowards and fear mongers like yourself
regularly post.

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: There are those who even
: suggest that the arguments against are equivalent to arguing for creationism
: or for the theory of a young earth, whose proponents seize on past science
: folly as proof of present science incompetence.

It is a sad fact that most of the denialist arguments - for example
that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man, that average global
temperatures are declining, etc. - are based on the same kind of
faith in ignorance that drives the anti-scientific creationism debate.

But this is not the only kind of corruption driving denialists. Big
money has purchased a denialist propaganda machine, and who are ignorant
of science have been honestly duped by this propaganda. Others simply
engage in denial out of fear.

This is not to say that all global warming skeptics are evil or on the
take, although many clearly are. There are no doubt a hand full of
honest scientists who really do doubt the overwhelming evidence. There
are a few others who are in the employ of those who expect to lose money
should steps be taken to solve the problem. As long as these scientists
remain honest they should be respected.

However, what is clear is that honesty does not include manufactured
conspiracy, chicken little economics, repetition of known errors, and
irrelevant issues. Honesty requires the acceptance of defeat on each
issue in turn.

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: Balling emphasizes the urban heat island effect as evidence of
: skewing the land based temperature record (something he feels is impossible
: to correct for) as well as the ability of ships today to largely avoid foul
: weather when they measure SSTs on their voyages and the resulting skewness
: of these data.

Valid complaints that are corrected for according to the consensus
opinion of scientists.

Also, Balling is on record as predicting further warming as CO2 levels
are increased.

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: Michaels emphasizes the lack of warming in the Southern
: Hemisphere (because sulfate aerosols are not largely present there) as
: evidence that factors other than aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere may be
: suppressing the climate forcing from GHG accumulation.

Michaels is also on record as predicting further warming as Co2 levels
increase.

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: Lindzen emphasizes a
: suspected drying of the upper atmosphere (now measured by NASA) as evidence
: of the lack of a strong water vapor feedback.

Lindzen is also on record as predicting further warming as Co2 levels
increase.

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: Douglas Hoyt and Sally
: Balainus emphasize the role of the sun in climate change.

Solar output has not been observed to have increased. And if it had
increased the observed warming would be greater than observed.

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: Vincent Gray
: notes that the IPCC has overestimated the rate of emissions growth as it
: follows from an overly optimistic economic growth outlook in the developed
: and in the developing world.

In other words Gray doesn't object to the fact that the globe will
warm, he simply objects to the rapidity at which the warming will come.

"Steven Hales" wrote:
: Disagreement with these climate experts will range,

Absolutely. The details are not clear. The debate over the reality
of global warming has however long been settled.

The scientific debate is over. The only people left on the opposing
side are scientifically illiterate, conservative denialists.

--
<---->

[char...@hal-pc.org]

In article <66pnlm$5...@argon.btinternet.com>,

Adrian...@BTInternet.com (Adrian Jones) wrote:
>The correct term for this is teleology - I personally feel
that the
>issue of global warming has been hijacked by people with
opposing

>viewpoints. However, just because we can't prove it doesn't
mean it
>isn't happening - ie. before the invention of the

microscope, we could
>not see bacteria, and had to invent other reasons for the
diseases
>which afflicted the population. I think we should neither
condemn
>something out of hand, nor endorse it wholeheartedly.
>But that is rather a Liberal answer, isn't it?
>

>Adrian Jones.
>

The problem as I see it, is that many condemn a person who
simply states that if there is presently no proof, we
shouldn't take action. Many enviros see this as an extreme
"right-wing" mentality. This is most unfortunate, as science
has never been advanced by assuming something first, and then
looking very hard for the data to back up the assumption.

[char...@hal-pc.org]

In article <348AF7...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>,
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote:
>Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com>

>>John Alway wrote in message
<348A20...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...
>
>>> For the record, there were many Nobel prize winners
>>> who signed the Heidelberg Appeal concerned with
>>> out of control environmentalism.
>
>
>>For the record Alway, You are a lying son of a bitch.

Gee, Jay. It seems that you lost the argument! It also
seems that you have slandered Mr. Alway's heritage. Naughty
boy!

[Karen McFarlin]

> It's also patronising and characteristic of the petty-intellectual
> chardonnay set.
>
> You don't shoot the messenger any more. You just psychoanalyse him.
>
> It's the old Soviet approach to dissent. The dissenter, to dissent
> against the discovered `truth' must be either malicious, or mad.
>
> If malicious, send them to the Gulag.
>
> If mad, put them in a psychiatric hospital.
>
> At no time did it occur to the Soviets that the dissenter might actually
> have been right, not malicious, and not mad. Indeed, they were the only
> sane people around.
>
> So spare us the pseudo-psychobabble and address the issues themselves
> like any adult citizen.
>
> John Daly

Or are these so-called skeptics merely in the employ (via grants and
subsities) of the very greenhouse gas producers? This is not a red herring
question.

All this talk of Gulags and Soviets is merely more conservative hyperbole.

Cairns

[Onar Aam]

> The earth's temperature has gone down over the last
> 20 years, this is an uncontested fact. However, it
> was by much less than a degree. I believe it was
> around 0.2 C.
>

> ...John

More like -0.1 C. When the effects of El Nino's and volcano eruptions
are subtracted from the data you end up with a warming of about
0.1-0.2 C. However, whether you can call such small variations
statistically significant is another matter.

>> The MIT prof is a certified luney, according to many of his
>> co-workers. He is also a geologist, and knows next to nothing about
>> GW.
>
> And notice this poster's egregious lie. Ask yourself
> what his motivation is. Who could possible stoop to
> such a level?

Look, Dave is just a rude brat, there's no need to get worked up
over him. There isn't a single person on usenet (except perhaps
some other brat) that takes him seriously. You shouldn't either.

Onar.

[Onar Aam]

>Or are these so-called skeptics merely in the employ (via grants and
>subsities) of the very greenhouse gas producers? This is not a red herring
>question.
>
>All this talk of Gulags and Soviets is merely more conservative hyperbole.
>
>Cairns

I can only speak for myself. I am not funded by the oil- or coal industry
or any other of the "bad guys." I work with alternative energy systems
that produce very low CO2 emissions compared to conventional systems, and
as such I would personally greatly benefit from a greenhouse hysteria.
Nevertheless I remain faithful to the science, and as of now it suggests
that the greenhouse warming is overestimated, although there are still
great uncertainties involved. My official position is to reassess the
situation in 20 years when we have both better data, more powerful
computers, and perhaps also a better understanding of atmospheric and
oceanic physics.

Onar.

[Al]

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 19:08:30 -0600, John Alway
<jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote:

> Listen, my exhortation is that you not try to justify yourself
> to environmentalists. They do not care how right you are nor how
> well read you are (Lindzen is the very best in the field, and look
> how they treat him!) It's very important to realize that they have a
> certain view and the facts are of utterly zero importance to them.
> This is the way they behave time and time again. There comes
> a point when you have to realize they really are that corrupt.

Odd, you've just given a far more apt description of right-wing takers
motivated by money and devoid of aesthetic values. It matters not
that a few enviros are in it for the wrong reasons. Most simply want
a better future.

Suggestion: if you dislike environmentalists so much, a good symbolic
gesture would be to *stay out* of the thousands of wild areas they
fought to preserve (against the very likes of you). Yosemite National
Park (preserved by famous "ecofreak" John Muir), would be a good
place for you to avoid at all costs. That'll show those evil, corrupt
environmentalists that you're a righteous dude.

- Al http://www.jps.net/ajn/zpg/islands.htm

[Peter]

In article <66q7i8$a1m$1...@news.hal-pc.org>, char...@hal-pc.org says...

I see your point, but I will say that there is never going to be proof in the
sense of the proof of a theorem in geometry. Even if a hundred years go by, and
global mean temperature is up 8-10 deg F, it will still be possible to say that
other factors caused it. Personally, I'm for energy conservation for a number of
reasons, the global warming issue being one of them.

I don't object to someone disagreeing with me, but I do object to being labelled
a "chicken little," or having it implied that my concern is a ploy to confiscate
property. Your posts are usually more reasonable, but that's not true of
everybody on this ng. On the other hand, I must admit that some of the media
stories do seem to assume thast global warming is a proven fact.

[Steve Fordyce]

On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 17:11:24 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
|ste...@vista.hevanet.com (Steve Fordyce) wrote:
|>On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 13:40:01, new...@olywa.net (Kirk Johnson) wrote:
|>|In article <654a18$m89$1...@alpine.psnw.com>, see...@thebeach.edu (Doug
|>|Bashford) wrote:
|>|>These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
|>|>consensus and often even accepted standard logic,
|
|>Ridiculous. There is no scientific consensus behind the idea that man
|>has or is causing dangerous global warming. Indeed, there is a growing
|>consensus that that theory is wrong:
|
|that is just an outright lie

Then prove I'm wrong, please. Prove there is a consensus that man has
or is causing dangerous global warming. I'm sure you wouldn't have said
my statement was a lie unless you had proof to the contrary. :-)
Please post it.

|>"Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur B. Robinson
|>and Zachary W. Robinson, WSJ, December 4, 1997, pA22.
|>Available at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
|
|anybody can get anything printed in the popular media, now where is
|the cite for the peer reviewed work?

Where is yours that says there is a consensus? And the two authors
above are not just anyone. Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are
chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

|>|>they are used to being rejected
|>|>by their peers and by society. However with media stars and political
|>|>wonks like Rush Limbaugh, etc. telling these people they are not
|>|>screwball company-man sheep nor rich-boy bootlicks, nor mean-spirited,
|>|>-- that they are "original thinkers", -- they have a nice exclusive club
|>|>where they can feel accepted, perhaps for the first time in their life;
|>|>validated. Their defense is extreme self-censorship of all input
|>|>information, including mind-filters.
|>|
|>|I think this is a very accurate observation. There is a lot of truth there.
|
|>You guys are projecting. You are the ones ignoring sound science.
|
|>The global warming theory goes like this:
|
|> A) Global average temperature has gone up 0.6 degrees centigrade since
|> around 1880.
|
|> B) CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.
|
|> C) The concentration of CO2 has increased about 30% since 1880 due to
|> human production of CO2.
|
|> D) C is the cause of A.
|
|> E) Further increase in global temperature will be disastrous for man and
|> life on earth.
|
|> F) Therefore, man must cut his production of CO2 to avoid further
|> temperature increase.
|
|>There is not a single item enumerated above that is not in serious
|>dispute and subject to great scientific uncertainty. So much so it
|
|my,my you are stomping your little feet and making yourself look
|foolish. There is not a point above that is in serious debate. The
|only possible except woud be the extent of the effects of global
|warming.

And just exactly how do you know that?

|>would be preposterous for us to take drastic action based on this
|>theory.
|
|>A: This is at best a very misleading representation of the actual
|>measurements, and at worst a outright lie. Scientific measurements are
|>never just a number like this, but the number measured or calculated
|>followed by its uncertainty, +/- something for round off in the
|>calculation and uncertainty in the measurement. Note you almost never
|>see that associated with global warming. I've only seen a figure given
|
|no the +/- is rarely used but it is very common to fond the range of
|the values given: the high, the low, the average or most likely

Not in the popular press it isn't. Remember, I'm not talking here about
the predictions of the future, but the surface data from the past.

|>for this a few times[1], and they have the increase as 0.45 +/- 0.15.
|>If that were true, 0.6 degrees is not the calculated increase, but the
|>worst case. It could have been as little as 0.3 degrees. But frankly I
|>don't believe 0.15 degrees comes even close to expressing the
|>uncertainties in the measurements.
|
|>We have no instrument that reads out the global average temperature for
|>a year. What we have is recorded temperatures from weather stations.
|>These are not at all scattered evenly around the globe, but are
|>concentrated in major cities, especially in the earlier years. Coverage
|>of the Southern hemisphere, and Africa is poor, and until relatively
|>recently there was no or next to no coverage of the oceans which account
|>for 3/4 of the planet's surface. Antarctica hadn't even been set foot on
|>until 1895, not to mention the increasing heat island effect as cities
|>grow (cities are warmer than the surrounding country side because of
|>heat absorbed by pavement, etc). So to use this data to measure global
|>average temperature is dubious at best.
|
|wrong it is perfectly valid. The heat island effect did not magically
|appear in this century, it has been part of cities from the beginning.

But it is not a constant: the cities have grown and the use of concrete
and asphalt has increased, not to mention the size and height of
buildings.

|And you are showing your igorance again by attributing it to absobtion
|of light by pavement. The major cause is the reradiated heat from
|buildings. Oh but that doesn't fit your theory, as building are better
|insulated today this would reduce the effect.

What is on parade here is not my ignorance but yours. BTW, I didn't
rank the causes of the heat island effect.

|>Taking the data at face value, most of the supposed warming occurred
|>before 1940 when the uncertainties in the data are the worst, the
|>increase in the heat island effect was probably the greatest, and
|>embarrassingly, BEFORE most of the increase in CO2. The best data we
|
|now the idiot is arguing against himself. Hint if the heat island
|effect was greater prior to 1940 then we indead have a greater effect
|of global warming than is commonly accepted.

What a stunning non sequitur.

|>have for global temperature by far come from satellites. We have that
|>data for the last 19 years, and they show a slight cooling over that
|
|wrong, there are several reasons to assume satellite data is
|inaccurate. to see a reasonable discussion of all the effects go to
|www.globalchange.org/sciall/97sep4/htm.
| After correcting for the effects of volcanoes the data shows a
|slight warming trend.

The very article you point to says there is a debate over this, and I
admit there is. You haven't shown I am wrong. There may be problems
with the satellite data (although that is not clear), but there are also
problems with the ground data: incompleteness for starters.

| But steve's whole tripe here is sorta like argueing what happens
|when you put an extra blanket on the bed. If you are under the
|blankets you get warming if you are atop the blankets you get colder.

The satellites aren't measuring the top. Nice try though.

|>period (hence the statement from Rush and other commentators that there
|>is no global warming).
|
|lush is a fucking idiot on more than just scientific matters.

You aren't making a great showing here either.

|>For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/
|
|>B: It is often said in the mass media that CO2 is the most important
|>greenhouse gas. This is flatly false. It is not even clear it is an
|>important factor in global temperature. Water vapor accounts for about
|>98% of the greenhouse effect (without which the earth would be a frozen
|>waste). All other greenhouse gases account for only 2%, and of them CO2
|>is the most important. However, it is not clear how much, if at all,
|>changes in CO2 levels would effect global temperature because the action
|
|have you now magically repealed the laws of naturre?

What a ridiculous question. I'm implying nothing of the kind.

|Are you saying that CO2 will not absorb the same wavelenghts of light
|in the presence of water vapor?

No. I'm saying the effects of CO2 may be trivial and masked by other
more important factors.

|>of water vapor is complex (temperature affects water vapor levels,
|>clouds cool the earth during the day, warm it at night, etc.). The
|>action of water vapor cannot be satisfactorily modeled currently, i.e.
|>uncertainty in the computer models on water vapor dwarf any effect
|>calculated for changes in CO2.
|
|simply not true, but then everyone except an idiot knows that th
|models used are currently evolving and provide a reasonable forecast.

This is simply false. The models are evolving but they do not provide a
reasonable forecast. See http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm.

|>C: Man's production of CO2 is a small percentage of natural CO2
|
|an out right lie. The burning of fossil fuels in ten year releases as
|much carbon as the atmosphere contains. In other words the burning of
|fossil fules in 1 year is equivalent to 10% of the carbon i the
|atmosphere.

This is absurd. Where did you get this nonsense? Man's total
production (not just from fossil fuels) of CO2 is roughly 5% of the
natural sources of CO2, and about 1% of the carbon in the atmosphere.

|>production. The notion is that sources and sinks of CO2 were in balance
|>and man's admittedly small addition to CO2 sources tipped that delicate
|
|As there are sources and sinks for carbon, but from the build up of
|CO2 in the atmo, it would appear that the sinks may be already
|overwhelmed.

Or perhaps the set point has moved up 30% as a result of some other
change. Since the increase in CO2 FOLLOWED the supposed increase in
temperature, it would seem more logical to me to assume it was the
result rather than the cause.

|>balance in favor of ever increasing levels of CO2. It is to laugh. If
|>there is any that is clear from our studies of the environment it is
|>that there is nothing "delicate" about the "balance" of nature, on CO2
|
|once again you insist on making an idiot of yourself. The simple
|example is extinct species as an example of how fragile the balance
|really is.

It is to laugh. You ought to do some actual reading on the carbon cycle
before you make a further fool of yourself.

|>or anything else. In any case, our quantitative understanding of the
|>CO2 cycle is not good enough for the belief that man caused the recent
|>increase in CO2 levels to be based on anything firmer than post hoc ergo
|
|you made the claim to back it up while the rest of us sit back and
|laugh. There are no natural sources of CO2 to account for the
|increase in CO2. But please feel free to amuse us.

You are laughably uninformed.

|>prompter hoc and (an unjustified) faith in the power of mankind.
|
|>Because of the theory of global warming, it is now popular among greens
|>to refer to CO2 as a pollutant. This is absurd. CO2 is breathed by
|
|it is

Ridiculous.

|>plants and is necessary for life. The increased levels of CO2 have made
|
|yup its required for plant life just as a trace of Se is reuired in
|your diet. But then at greater concentrations Se becomes extremely
|posionous.

We are orders of magnitude away from poisonous concentrations. Surely
you know that.

|>plants more productive, which is a very good thing.
|
|Not correct. Studies have shown that with increasing CO2 concentration
|that species of weeds become the dominate plant life. Other studies
|have shown that with increases of CO2 that plants become less
|nutrionous(more fiberous).

Let's have references to these "studies", please.

|>D: The notion that C caused A is based on computer models. It is
|>important to understand just how poor these models are. If you start
|
|first the models are not the underlieing theory behind global warming.
|The theories of quantum, light/matter ineraction and thermo are the
|basis for global warming. As of yet I doubt you have the ability to
|repeal anyone of them.

The "theories of quantum, light/matter ineraction and thermo"? You
haven't a clue what you are talking about do you? In any case, the
theory is built into the models and so you are making a distinction
without a difference. It is the models that give us a prediction of the
magnitude of the change, which is what I am talking about.

| And the reality of the models is that they are pretty damn good and
|are continuing to evolve into models that are more accurate.

The models are in fact shockingly poor, as I say.

|>with present condition and work backwards, they do not predict the known
|>past. If you start with past conditions, you don't get the present,
|>and always the direction of the error is in predicting too much warming
|>for increased CO2. So why do we suddenly believe these models when we
|>run them into the future? Again, the output of these models is not just
|>a single number, as it is almost always given in main stream media, but
|>a calculated prediction, AND an error band, the calculated uncertainty
|>in the prediction. Well, the reason for this is clear, the uncertainty
|>in the prediction dwarfs the predicted increase. Literally, according
|>to the models, increased CO2 levels could result in significantly LOWER
|>global temperatures (because of possible changes in cloud cover, etc.).
|
|as usual you are telling some whoppers here.

No, that would be you. If I am wrong, prove it.

|>For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

I note you ignored this.

|>E: It is not at all clear that increased global temperatures would be
|>bad for man or life in general. It could, in fact, be very good. Based
|>on our current understanding it is just as likely that increased
|>temperatures would make the climates milder, storms less severe, and
|
|bullshit. Ya some climates may become milder but then there is the
|risk for tropical disease to spread into these now mild climates.
|Hardly an advantage.

That fear is junk science. See:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/taubes2.html.

|>drop ocean levels or leave them unchanged. The reason for this is that
|>there is reason to believe that increased AVERAGE temperature could
|>manifest itself not as higher highs, but as warmer lows at night.
|
|more bullshit logic, so the night time temps are warming there is less
|cooling therfore the waters in the ocean warms, and with that warming
|comes thermo expansion and rising sea levels.

Or more snow falls in the arctic and sea levels fall. The problem with
your theory is that there is no correlation between sea level and global
temperature.

|>Storms are driven by temperature contrasts, and this should decrease
|>storm severity. And warmer lows wouldn't necessarily result in a
|
|once again logic fails the little dittoblot. Alright so the night time
|temps are warmer, now we input the same amount of energy what happens.
|The day time temps rise. So steve we can add logic to the list of
|subjects that you don't understand as well.

Facts aren't one of yours: day temps haven't been rising. Almost all of
the apparent increase in the surface temperature data has been in the
lows (i.e. nighttime temperature). There has been no significant
movement in the highs.

|>smaller net ice pack at the poles.
|
|So you are ignoring the already thinning of the polar caps? and the
|melting of the permafrost?

I've seen no convincing evidence that either is systematically occurring.

|>F: Even if A through E were all true, it is not at all clear that the
|>most reasonable response is to cut CO2 production. The economy greatly
|
|since CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas the only logical
|approach is to reduce the emission of it.

CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas, H2O is. And cutting
emissions is not the only logical approach.

|>depends on the burning of fossil fuels and other CO2 producing
|>materials. Cutting down would be extremely costly, and there are a
|
|there are many options available to cut it, biomass fuels, solar,
|wind, etc... But these methods have one thing in common they all
|collect enegry from diffuse sources. And since the greedheads running
|the corporations cannot buy up the sources there is precious little
|reseach or efforts being expended in these areas. Instead the
|greedheads that control the flow of money are having government
|research directed to useless research that will enable them to stay in
|power.

Why do you ignore the other solutions?

|>number of cheaper, high tech options. In November 1997 issue of REASON,
|>the cover story is devoted to some of these (the story is available on
|>the web at: http://www.reasonmag.com/9711/fe.benford.html). My
|>favorite: the Geritol solution. Plankton growth in the cold waters of
|>the Pacific are limited primarily by a shortage of the trace mineral
|>iron. A relatively inexpensive program of fertilizing these waters with
|>iron could so increase plankton growth that CO2 levels could be reduced
|
|deliberate polluting of an environemnt has never worked well. The
|longterm effect of that would lead to the same result that is common
|in shallow midwest lakes. You get a huge algae bloom, then it dies off
|and the next thing is as the algae deacys you get botulism. But even
|then you have failed to remove the CO2 for any significant lenght of
|time.

You don't know what you are talking about. There have in fact be small
scale tests of the Geritol solution and the results were encouraging.
Fertilizing the ocean with trace amounts of iron is not polluting it.

|>(or man's contributions consumed). This would have the added benefit of
|>making the oceans more productive for things like salmon.
|
|unless sound logging practices are put into place in the Northwest,
|salmon are in serious trouble.

Sound logging practices have been in place in the Northwest for years,
and the salmon have declined as the quality of the rivers has improved.
You don't know what you are talking about.

|>When the weaknesses of the global warming theory are acknowledged, the
|>usual response by the greens is to rhetorically ask, "Can we afford to
|>wait? What if the theory is right?" Well, these are answerable
|>questions, and the answer is not, "We must act now." The same models
|>that predict we have a problem can be used to assess the costs and risks
|>for waiting, say ten years. This has been done, and the costs are small
|
|funny how you claim that the models are too inaccurate from sound
|practices to be put in place but now claim that they can give accurate
|economic forecasts?

You are misreading what I said. By "costs" I was not just referring to
money. Further, if say we must act based on these models, it is
perfectly reasonable to look at what the models say the effect of
waiting until we know more would be.

|>compared to the huge costs of cutting CO2 production now. A more
|>sensible question would be, "Can we afford to act now? What if the
|>theory is wrong?"
|
|the theory is not wrong as the effidence is pilling up on the side of
|the theory.

Not true. The is no convincing empirical evidence that supporting the
theory yet. Indeed the empirical evidence is goes against the theory.
See: "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur B.
Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson, WSJ, December 4, 1997, pA22. Available
at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

|>For more on this subject, especially the junk science associated with
|>the theory of global warming, I recommend http://www.junkscience.com.
|
|that site is nothing more than more babbling

Hardly.

|for the real stories check a few of these sites.
|www.epa.gov/globalwarming
|www.globalchange.org
|www.ciesin.org/TG/LU/LU-home-html
|www.gcrio.org

Sure, why not? Get the whole story and see who has the best arguments.

|>Search locally for articles on global warming. Those pushing the
|>global warming theory claim the mantel of science, but it is clear it is
|>not science that is driving the movement. It is ridiculous that we
|
|unfortunately you are right on this point. Its corporate welfare and
|influence that is delaying any action. So take a trip to these sites
|to see how the greedheads are buying your future.

Actually, I was talking about the greed for money and power that seems
to drive your side of the debate. See
http://www.globalwarming.org/science/holes.htm.
--
ste...@hevanet.com I am the NRA Steven R. Fordyce
-- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? --

[char...@hal-pc.org]

In article
<unavailable-08...@fbk-p4-139.alaska.net>,
unava...@a.com (Dave v1.0) wrote:
>In article <348b4f6c...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
dst...@wgst.com wrote:
>
>
> These two SHITs put forth the most moronic
>> claptrap I've ever seen!
>
>>
>> Stupid shit...
>
>
>You certianly are not doing yourself any good little
Stoney...spewing all
>that filth and lies...
>
>Did you know the UN report of GW specicially says
>
>"Natural climate variability hinders the detection of any
man-made warming
>trend. Figures A and B show past variations in the global
mean temperature
>inferred from direct measurements (A) and from the analysis
of ice-cores
>(B). While the state of the climate clearly involves much
more than just
>global temperature, changes in global temperatures do
indicate the scale of
>different climatic events, both natural and man-made. The
range of natural
>year-to-year temperature variations is quite similar to the
size of the
>warming that appears to have occurred over the past century
(0.3-0.6 C).
>Moreover, the 16th to 18th centuries appear to have been
unusually cold, and
>the climate may still be recovering from that time. So
scientists cannot yet
>claim to have found an unambiguous temperature-related
"greenhouse signal".

Conclusion - most of the "chicken littles" out there are a
bunch of sheep being led around by a bunch of politicians who
are trying to scare people out of their hard earned money
(via increased taxation). This global warming carbon tax
thing is starting to look more and more like a tax on
stupidity.

It's time for a brief trip down U.S. memory lane. Just 1 or
two generations ago, this country asked many brave young men
to charge German and Japanese machine gun nests in order to
secure the freedom of many people on a different continent.
Others' freedom was paid for in *much* bravery and bloodshed.
Today, we are scared of global warming, even before we can
definitely determine that any of it is man-made. How has
this country become so full of pansies in such a short time?

In other words, there are occasions when reading this
newsgroup, that I am ashamed to associate myself with other
U.S. citizens who are begging the federal government to save
them from disaster.

[Scott Nudds]

: John Alway wrote:
: > The earth's temperature has gone down over the last

: > 20 years, this is an uncontested fact. However, it
: > was by much less than a degree. I believe it was
: > around 0.2 C.

John Alway is a liar. Here is the temperature record over the last 20
years or so...

Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42)

1867 ....*

1974 ..............................*
1975 ..............................*
1976 ......................*
1977 .........................................*
1978 .....................................*
1979 ........................................*
1980 ...............................................*
1981 .....................................................*
1982 ....................................*
1983 ...............................................*
1984 ......................................*
1985 ......................................*
1986 .........................................*
1987 .................................................*
1988 ...................................................*
1989 .............................................*
1990 .........................................................*
1991 ......................................................*
<-Pinatubo
1992 ........................................*
1993 ...........................................*
1994 .................................................*

[gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com]

ste...@vista.hevanet.com (Steve Fordyce) wrote:

note steve's over reliance on only one source to back his claim, the
junkscience site where the webmaster steve millory is a registered
lobist for the worst polluters in the US.

>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 17:11:24 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>|ste...@vista.hevanet.com (Steve Fordyce) wrote:
>|>On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 13:40:01, new...@olywa.net (Kirk Johnson) wrote:
>|>|In article <654a18$m89$1...@alpine.psnw.com>, see...@thebeach.edu (Doug
>|>|Bashford) wrote:
>|>|>These anti-environmentalists, being against social and scientific
>|>|>consensus and often even accepted standard logic,
>|
>|>Ridiculous. There is no scientific consensus behind the idea that man
>|>has or is causing dangerous global warming. Indeed, there is a growing
>|>consensus that that theory is wrong:
>|
>|that is just an outright lie

>Then prove I'm wrong, please. Prove there is a consensus that man has
>or is causing dangerous global warming. I'm sure you wouldn't have said
>my statement was a lie unless you had proof to the contrary. :-)
>Please post it.

start by telling us how many scientist signed th Ippc report?

>|>"Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur B. Robinson
>|>and Zachary W. Robinson, WSJ, December 4, 1997, pA22.
>|>Available at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
>

there's that site

>|anybody can get anything printed in the popular media, now where is
>|the cite for the peer reviewed work?

>Where is yours that says there is a consensus? And the two authors
>above are not just anyone. Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are
>chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

where's mty cite try the IPPC report.

unlike you I read something besides cartoon magazines

>|>would be preposterous for us to take drastic action based on this
>|>theory.
>|
>|>A: This is at best a very misleading representation of the actual
>|>measurements, and at worst a outright lie. Scientific measurements are
>|>never just a number like this, but the number measured or calculated
>|>followed by its uncertainty, +/- something for round off in the
>|>calculation and uncertainty in the measurement. Note you almost never
>|>see that associated with global warming. I've only seen a figure given
>|
>|no the +/- is rarely used but it is very common to fond the range of
>|the values given: the high, the low, the average or most likely

>Not in the popular press it isn't. Remember, I'm not talking here about
>the predictions of the future, but the surface data from the past.

the errors in the past can be estimated reliably

>|>for this a few times[1], and they have the increase as 0.45 +/- 0.15.
>|>If that were true, 0.6 degrees is not the calculated increase, but the
>|>worst case. It could have been as little as 0.3 degrees. But frankly I
>|>don't believe 0.15 degrees comes even close to expressing the
>|>uncertainties in the measurements.
>|
>|>We have no instrument that reads out the global average temperature for
>|>a year. What we have is recorded temperatures from weather stations.
>|>These are not at all scattered evenly around the globe, but are
>|>concentrated in major cities, especially in the earlier years. Coverage
>|>of the Southern hemisphere, and Africa is poor, and until relatively
>|>recently there was no or next to no coverage of the oceans which account
>|>for 3/4 of the planet's surface. Antarctica hadn't even been set foot on
>|>until 1895, not to mention the increasing heat island effect as cities
>|>grow (cities are warmer than the surrounding country side because of
>|>heat absorbed by pavement, etc). So to use this data to measure global
>|>average temperature is dubious at best.
>|
>|wrong it is perfectly valid. The heat island effect did not magically
>|appear in this century, it has been part of cities from the beginning.

>But it is not a constant: the cities have grown and the use of concrete
>and asphalt has increased, not to mention the size and height of
>buildings.

and you keep ommitting the fact that the buildings are better
insulated nowdays working to offset the effect of aborbers

>|And you are showing your igorance again by attributing it to absobtion
>|of light by pavement. The major cause is the reradiated heat from
>|buildings. Oh but that doesn't fit your theory, as building are better
>|insulated today this would reduce the effect.

>What is on parade here is not my ignorance but yours. BTW, I didn't
>rank the causes of the heat island effect.

are you claiming reradiated heat from buildings is not a major factor?

>|>Taking the data at face value, most of the supposed warming occurred
>|>before 1940 when the uncertainties in the data are the worst, the
>|>increase in the heat island effect was probably the greatest, and
>|>embarrassingly, BEFORE most of the increase in CO2. The best data we
>|
>|now the idiot is arguing against himself. Hint if the heat island
>|effect was greater prior to 1940 then we indead have a greater effect
>|of global warming than is commonly accepted.

>What a stunning non sequitur.

>|>have for global temperature by far come from satellites. We have that
>|>data for the last 19 years, and they show a slight cooling over that
>|
>|wrong, there are several reasons to assume satellite data is
>|inaccurate. to see a reasonable discussion of all the effects go to
>|www.globalchange.org/sciall/97sep4/htm.
>| After correcting for the effects of volcanoes the data shows a
>|slight warming trend.

>The very article you point to says there is a debate over this, and I
>admit there is. You haven't shown I am wrong. There may be problems

funny your orginal claim stated otherwise. Yes there is a debate, but
after correcting for the volcanoes the data now does support you
perhaps you would like to ignore volcanoes now?

>with the satellite data (although that is not clear), but there are also
>problems with the ground data: incompleteness for starters.

ok now you are being silly and petty. jezus all it takes is for some
dittoblot to say the data is incomplete because we don't have a temp
reading for every square meter of surface area. The fact remains that
the data from all reporting stations is used the effect has been a
warming trend. Its also a fact that those stations are spread
globally, so in effect what you are now claiming is in the areas in
between the stations have temps that are magically much cooler than
what the temps are in the surrounding areas with reporting stations.

>| But steve's whole tripe here is sorta like argueing what happens
>|when you put an extra blanket on the bed. If you are under the
>|blankets you get warming if you are atop the blankets you get colder.

>The satellites aren't measuring the top. Nice try though.

they are not measuring surface temps.

>|>period (hence the statement from Rush and other commentators that there
>|>is no global warming).
>|
>|lush is a fucking idiot on more than just scientific matters.

>You aren't making a great showing here either.

better than what you are doing

>|>For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/
>|
>|>B: It is often said in the mass media that CO2 is the most important
>|>greenhouse gas. This is flatly false. It is not even clear it is an
>|>important factor in global temperature. Water vapor accounts for about
>|>98% of the greenhouse effect (without which the earth would be a frozen
>|>waste). All other greenhouse gases account for only 2%, and of them CO2
>|>is the most important. However, it is not clear how much, if at all,
>|>changes in CO2 levels would effect global temperature because the action
>|
>|have you now magically repealed the laws of naturre?

>What a ridiculous question. I'm implying nothing of the kind.

yes you are

>|Are you saying that CO2 will not absorb the same wavelenghts of light
>|in the presence of water vapor?

>No. I'm saying the effects of CO2 may be trivial and masked by other
>more important factors.

oh do tell us what is going to mask the effect. It should be msot
amusing

>|>of water vapor is complex (temperature affects water vapor levels,
>|>clouds cool the earth during the day, warm it at night, etc.). The
>|>action of water vapor cannot be satisfactorily modeled currently, i.e.
>|>uncertainty in the computer models on water vapor dwarf any effect
>|>calculated for changes in CO2.
>|
>|simply not true, but then everyone except an idiot knows that th
>|models used are currently evolving and provide a reasonable forecast.

>This is simply false. The models are evolving but they do not provide a
>reasonable forecast. See http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm.

for those challegend by science try this site that covers the CO2
water issue www.grcio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html

>|>C: Man's production of CO2 is a small percentage of natural CO2
>|
>|an out right lie. The burning of fossil fuels in ten year releases as
>|much carbon as the atmosphere contains. In other words the burning of
>|fossil fules in 1 year is equivalent to 10% of the carbon i the
>|atmosphere.

>This is absurd. Where did you get this nonsense? Man's total
>production (not just from fossil fuels) of CO2 is roughly 5% of the
>natural sources of CO2, and about 1% of the carbon in the atmosphere.

>|>production. The notion is that sources and sinks of CO2 were in balance
>|>and man's admittedly small addition to CO2 sources tipped that delicate
>|
>|As there are sources and sinks for carbon, but from the build up of
>|CO2 in the atmo, it would appear that the sinks may be already
>|overwhelmed.

>Or perhaps the set point has moved up 30% as a result of some other
>change. Since the increase in CO2 FOLLOWED the supposed increase in
>temperature, it would seem more logical to me to assume it was the
>result rather than the cause.

wrong again the increase in Co2 was followed by rising temps, your
dishonesty is readily apparent

>|>balance in favor of ever increasing levels of CO2. It is to laugh. If
>|>there is any that is clear from our studies of the environment it is
>|>that there is nothing "delicate" about the "balance" of nature, on CO2
>|
>|once again you insist on making an idiot of yourself. The simple
>|example is extinct species as an example of how fragile the balance
>|really is.

>It is to laugh. You ought to do some actual reading on the carbon cycle
>before you make a further fool of yourself.

I sugest it is you that needs to bone up on the carbon cycle.
heres some reading for you www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/tans.html

>|>or anything else. In any case, our quantitative understanding of the
>|>CO2 cycle is not good enough for the belief that man caused the recent
>|>increase in CO2 levels to be based on anything firmer than post hoc ergo
>|
>|you made the claim to back it up while the rest of us sit back and
>|laugh. There are no natural sources of CO2 to account for the
>|increase in CO2. But please feel free to amuse us.

>You are laughably uninformed.

ok start listing them, I'll be pleasantly amuzed.

>|>prompter hoc and (an unjustified) faith in the power of mankind.
>|
>|>Because of the theory of global warming, it is now popular among greens
>|>to refer to CO2 as a pollutant. This is absurd. CO2 is breathed by
>|
>|it is

>Ridiculous.

>|>plants and is necessary for life. The increased levels of CO2 have made
>|
>|yup its required for plant life just as a trace of Se is reuired in
>|your diet. But then at greater concentrations Se becomes extremely
>|posionous.

>We are orders of magnitude away from poisonous concentrations. Surely
>you know that.

at high concentrations CO2 leads to a loss in nutriental value of
plants and leads to dominace of weeds in natural settings. I don't
know the threshold values but they are not that much greater than the
atmos value especially with ever increasing CO2 emsions.

>|>plants more productive, which is a very good thing.
>|
>|Not correct. Studies have shown that with increasing CO2 concentration
>|that species of weeds become the dominate plant life. Other studies
>|have shown that with increases of CO2 that plants become less
>|nutrionous(more fiberous).

>Let's have references to these "studies", please.

give me a while on that one I'm not about to sort through a couple
feet of papers until I have had more coffee. But I believe some of
them can be found on the ciesin site or try the USGS site.

>|>D: The notion that C caused A is based on computer models. It is
>|>important to understand just how poor these models are. If you start
>|
>|first the models are not the underlieing theory behind global warming.
>|The theories of quantum, light/matter ineraction and thermo are the
>|basis for global warming. As of yet I doubt you have the ability to
>|repeal anyone of them.

>The "theories of quantum, light/matter ineraction and thermo"? You
>haven't a clue what you are talking about do you? In any case, the

are you denying that these theories are the underlieing theories in
global warming? If you are you are a fool indead.

>theory is built into the models and so you are making a distinction
>without a difference. It is the models that give us a prediction of the
>magnitude of the change, which is what I am talking about.

>| And the reality of the models is that they are pretty damn good and
>|are continuing to evolve into models that are more accurate.

>The models are in fact shockingly poor, as I say.

the models are quite reasonable

>|>with present condition and work backwards, they do not predict the known
>|>past. If you start with past conditions, you don't get the present,
>|>and always the direction of the error is in predicting too much warming
>|>for increased CO2. So why do we suddenly believe these models when we
>|>run them into the future? Again, the output of these models is not just
>|>a single number, as it is almost always given in main stream media, but
>|>a calculated prediction, AND an error band, the calculated uncertainty
>|>in the prediction. Well, the reason for this is clear, the uncertainty
>|>in the prediction dwarfs the predicted increase. Literally, according
>|>to the models, increased CO2 levels could result in significantly LOWER
>|>global temperatures (because of possible changes in cloud cover, etc.).
>|
>|as usual you are telling some whoppers here.

>No, that would be you. If I am wrong, prove it.

>|>For more on this see: http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

>I note you ignored this.

>|>E: It is not at all clear that increased global temperatures would be
>|>bad for man or life in general. It could, in fact, be very good. Based
>|>on our current understanding it is just as likely that increased
>|>temperatures would make the climates milder, storms less severe, and
>|
>|bullshit. Ya some climates may become milder but then there is the
>|risk for tropical disease to spread into these now mild climates.
>|Hardly an advantage.

>That fear is junk science. See:
>http://www.junkscience.com/news/taubes2.html.

there is that reference for a registered lobist for the worst
polluters in the US, again

>|>drop ocean levels or leave them unchanged. The reason for this is that
>|>there is reason to believe that increased AVERAGE temperature could
>|>manifest itself not as higher highs, but as warmer lows at night.
>|
>|more bullshit logic, so the night time temps are warming there is less
>|cooling therfore the waters in the ocean warms, and with that warming
>|comes thermo expansion and rising sea levels.

>Or more snow falls in the arctic and sea levels fall. The problem with
>your theory is that there is no correlation between sea level and global
>temperature.

wrong

>|>Storms are driven by temperature contrasts, and this should decrease
>|>storm severity. And warmer lows wouldn't necessarily result in a
>|
>|once again logic fails the little dittoblot. Alright so the night time
>|temps are warmer, now we input the same amount of energy what happens.
>|The day time temps rise. So steve we can add logic to the list of
>|subjects that you don't understand as well.

>Facts aren't one of yours: day temps haven't been rising. Almost all of

huh? ever listen to a weather report? Gee just this past year we have
set a couple new alltime highs.

>the apparent increase in the surface temperature data has been in the
>lows (i.e. nighttime temperature). There has been no significant

hmm that is just the result that those "awful models" have predicted.
ooooppppps

>movement in the highs.

>|>smaller net ice pack at the poles.
>|
>|So you are ignoring the already thinning of the polar caps? and the
>|melting of the permafrost?

>I've seen no convincing evidence that either is systematically occurring.

jezus clown the Portland Oregion has publish pictures of glaciers in
Or taken in the 30-40's an d today they have shrunk dramatically. Oh
sorry I forgot you only read the funny page.

>|>F: Even if A through E were all true, it is not at all clear that the
>|>most reasonable response is to cut CO2 production. The economy greatly
>|
>|since CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas the only logical
>|approach is to reduce the emission of it.

>CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas, H2O is. And cutting
>emissions is not the only logical approach.

stompping his little feet pitty pat until you get your way is not
going to make it here.

>|>depends on the burning of fossil fuels and other CO2 producing
>|>materials. Cutting down would be extremely costly, and there are a
>|
>|there are many options available to cut it, biomass fuels, solar,
>|wind, etc... But these methods have one thing in common they all
>|collect enegry from diffuse sources. And since the greedheads running
>|the corporations cannot buy up the sources there is precious little
>|reseach or efforts being expended in these areas. Instead the
>|greedheads that control the flow of money are having government
>|research directed to useless research that will enable them to stay in
>|power.

>Why do you ignore the other solutions?

and what may they be?

>|>number of cheaper, high tech options. In November 1997 issue of REASON,
>|>the cover story is devoted to some of these (the story is available on
>|>the web at: http://www.reasonmag.com/9711/fe.benford.html). My
>|>favorite: the Geritol solution. Plankton growth in the cold waters of
>|>the Pacific are limited primarily by a shortage of the trace mineral
>|>iron. A relatively inexpensive program of fertilizing these waters with
>|>iron could so increase plankton growth that CO2 levels could be reduced
>|
>|deliberate polluting of an environemnt has never worked well. The
>|longterm effect of that would lead to the same result that is common
>|in shallow midwest lakes. You get a huge algae bloom, then it dies off
>|and the next thing is as the algae deacys you get botulism. But even
>|then you have failed to remove the CO2 for any significant lenght of
>|time.

>You don't know what you are talking about. There have in fact be small
>scale tests of the Geritol solution and the results were encouraging.
>Fertilizing the ocean with trace amounts of iron is not polluting it.

its polluting the environment.

>|>(or man's contributions consumed). This would have the added benefit of
>|>making the oceans more productive for things like salmon.
>|
>|unless sound logging practices are put into place in the Northwest,
>|salmon are in serious trouble.

>Sound logging practices have been in place in the Northwest for years,

sound logging practices would be sustainable and thats has not been
the practice in the Nortwest or elsewhere. You forget that I lived in
Portland for 18 years. Given the current fence post size of logs you
now see on the logging trucks compared to the size of the logs in the
40's; in another 30 years they will be hauling toothpicks.

>and the salmon have declined as the quality of the rivers has improved.
>You don't know what you are talking about.

not all salmon runs have declined, some were still triving when I
moved. But they were the smaller rivers. ANd the quality of the rivers
hasn't been improved in the spawning areas in fact it has been
degraded from clear cuts. The buffer areas left beside the streams are
simply to narrow to handle the amount of silt coming from large clear
cuts.

>|>When the weaknesses of the global warming theory are acknowledged, the
>|>usual response by the greens is to rhetorically ask, "Can we afford to
>|>wait? What if the theory is right?" Well, these are answerable
>|>questions, and the answer is not, "We must act now." The same models
>|>that predict we have a problem can be used to assess the costs and risks
>|>for waiting, say ten years. This has been done, and the costs are small
>|
>|funny how you claim that the models are too inaccurate from sound
>|practices to be put in place but now claim that they can give accurate
>|economic forecasts?

>You are misreading what I said. By "costs" I was not just referring to
>money. Further, if say we must act based on these models, it is
>perfectly reasonable to look at what the models say the effect of
>waiting until we know more would be.

wrong very wrong.

>|>compared to the huge costs of cutting CO2 production now. A more
>|>sensible question would be, "Can we afford to act now? What if the
>|>theory is wrong?"
>|
>|the theory is not wrong as the effidence is pilling up on the side of
>|the theory.

>Not true. The is no convincing empirical evidence that supporting the
>theory yet. Indeed the empirical evidence is goes against the theory.

increased numbers and severity of storms, melting glaciers, thining
ice caps, melting permafrost, nortward migration of warm weather
species, increased wind speed are allevidence for global warming
and are occurring today.

>See: "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur B.
>Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson, WSJ, December 4, 1997, pA22. Available
>at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

>|>For more on this subject, especially the junk science associated with
>|>the theory of global warming, I recommend http://www.junkscience.com.
>|
>|that site is nothing more than more babbling

>Hardly.

yup the webmaster is a registered lobbyist for the worst polluters

[Scott Nudds]

(Greig Ebeling) wrote:
: You have neglected to show the horizontal scale.

Too bad. I gave you the raw data. Earlier.

(Greig Ebeling) wrote:
: You have also failed to mention the data source.

Also supplied with the raw data.

(Greig Ebeling) wrote:
: And you also fail yet again to realise

: that a correlation between a rise in temperature and an increase in
: CO2 does not necessarily mean a causal relationship.

Exactly in the same way there is no proof of a causal relationship
between increased body surface temperature and putting on a coat.

(Greig Ebeling) wrote:
: Your persistent adherence to an opinion, rather than looking at all

: possibilities, shows to all your lack of objectivity and scientific
: credibility.

Sorry Ebeling, those alien moon beams that you think are controlling
your mind, aren't heating the earth either.

--
<---->

[Scott Nudds]

char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
: Unfortunately, I
: just received a personal email reply from Don Libby regarding
: the fact that a study he cited noted little or no correlation
: between CO2/aerosol data and global warming.

No correlation? Charliew is ignorant and incompetent.

Scatter plot of Co2 concentration vs temperature index
for the years 1958 - 1994

Hansen
^ Temperature
| Index
| .
| ' . . ' .o
| . ' ' . .
| . '. ' . . .' '
| '.'' . ' ' .
|o .' ' '' '
| '
|
|------------------------------------------------
CO2 concentration -->
Yearly (ppmv) Mauna Loa Observatory

Correlation is clearly seen, with best linear fit obtained by
connection points o and o.

--
<---->

[Scott Nudds]

(Steve Fordyce) wrote:
: Ridiculous. There is no scientific consensus behind the idea that man

: has or is causing dangerous global warming.

Fordyce is abandoning ship. Earlier he claimed that there was no
consensus on the reality of global warming. Now he claims that there is
no consensus on the idea that the future warming will be dangerous.

By moderating is foolishly extremist objections and abandoning the
near sunken ship of global warming denialism, Fordyce shows us that even
he has lost faith in the denialist mantra - "no evidence of global
warming".

Unfortunately Fordyce doesn't go quite far enough. It appears to me
that there is scientific consensus behind the idea that the warming that
is still to come is dangerous, but perhaps not in the sense that Fordyce
thinks. The consensus opinion appears to be that unless emissions are
curbed, we will not end up with a CO2 doubled atmosphere, or even a CO2
tripled atmosphere, but perhaps a CO2 quadrupled atmosphere or worse,
and at these extreme levels of CO2, danger is a virtual certainty.

I applaud Fordyce for admitting to his past errors and accepting the
reality of global warming.

(Steve Fordyce) wrote:
: "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur B. Robinson

: and Zachary W. Robinson, WSJ, December 4, 1997, pA22.
: Available at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

^^^^^^^^^^^

Fordyce has apparently not clued in to the fact that what appears at
Junkscience.com is junk science.

Wake up Stevie....

--
<---->

[Scott Nudds]

: Steven Hales wrote:
: > But in the climate change debate there are
: >those on the dissenting side who have argued for more certainity than can
: >exist.

Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com> wrote:
: False. The 'dissenters' have argued for SOME certainty.

Extremist Russell refers to them as "dissenters", but they are
properly known as denialists. They have been repeatedly asked what
evidence they would accept as "proof" that global warming is real.
After literally years of asking this question, they have still to
provide a reasonable answer.

Typically if any answer is given at all, these denialists insist that
more time is needed to see a trend developing. When pressed on how much
more time they need, they speak in terms of hundreds of years, and as we
know great change will already be upon us before this time is up.

So in effect the denialists are insisting by definition that we can not
know, and must not know, the result of the global warming experiment
that is now running.

They have a faith in their own ignorance. A faith that contradicts the
scientific consensus opinion.

Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com> wrote:
: There is no
: correlation whatsoever between the fearmongers claims of looming global
: apocalypse and real data.

Extremist Russell sees only what his denialist religion permits him to
see. There is no scientific consensus on the precise results of the
global warming experiment that is now running. There are risks of great
damage, particularly due to sea level rise. But also potentially from
more server storms and extreme weather. There is also a risk of
altering the atlantic ocean currents that keep Europe reasonably warm.

The real fearmongers come from Russell's camp. They predict gloom and
doom should any measure be taken to limit CO2 production. Apparently
oblivious to the fact that

Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com> wrote:
: There is no correlation between the computer
: models that say we have had global warming and the actual temperature
: record.

Hugh? Russell seems to be as ignorant about correlation as Hales.
Since both model and observation shows continued warming there is
necessarily correlation.

Who do you think you are fooling Russell?

Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com> wrote:
: There is no honest justification for draconian taxes, massive energy
: rationing, and eco-war upon the poor that is being demanded in Kyoto.

Agreed. Do you notice that Kyoto didn't result in such things?

You're such a doomster Russell.

--
<---->

[James D. Leslie]

af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:

If you are looking for something that resembles truth please try
looking at the 'World Climate Report' website and get the REAL facts
on Global Warming, CO2 levels, high and low surface and atmospheric
temperatures for the past 127 years. The address is www.nhes.com.

For further reading on this issue read my earlier post called 'The
Bill & Al Global Warming Show'.

Also, go to 'Forbes Magazine' for more on this issue. Search the
magazine for the articles by typing in 'Global Warming'. You will
find many proven facts in these articles and arguments that are
absoluetly defensible. In other words Global Warming DOES'NT exist!!!

You should really research the subject a little more.

[char...@hal-pc.org]

In article <671l1p$d...@camel21.mindspring.com>,

jdle...@mindspring.com (James D. Leslie) wrote:
>af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
>>char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
>>: Unfortunately, I
>>: just received a personal email reply from Don Libby
regarding
>>: the fact that a study he cited noted little or no
correlation
>>: between CO2/aerosol data and global warming.
>
>> No correlation? Charliew is ignorant and incompetent.
>

Scott is never at a loss for words when it comes to insulting
those who don't share his views (which is most of us).

I will seek Don's permission to forward part of his email
reply to me. Unless he has a problem with the "forward", you
can check out the included reference for yourself.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On 11 Dec 1997 09:56:34 GMT, af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott
Nudds) wrote:

>Andrew Russell (arus...@BIX.com) wrote:
>: For the record, Jay Hanson claims that nuclear power plants can explode:

> And Chornobyl proves that he is correct.

And _exactly_ what do you mean by that?

Hint - There are three different types of explosions one can talk
about for a 'nuclear' power plant. One cannot occur (nuclear), the
others can (steam/chemical(hydrogen)).
--

"He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine."
Jonathan Edwards

[Watson Aname]

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, dlo...@nionslpianmk.com (David Loewe, Jr.) wrote:

> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
>> Andrew Russell (arus...@BIX.com) wrote:
>>
>>: For the record, Jay Hanson claims that nuclear power plants can
>>: explode:
>
>> And Chornobyl proves that he is correct.
>
> And _exactly_ what do you mean by that?
>
> Hint - There are three different types of explosions one can talk
> about for a 'nuclear' power plant. One cannot occur (nuclear), the
> others can (steam/chemical(hydrogen)).

Thus, in two different circumstances, a nuclear reactor can be fairly
said to have exploded. Unless one is of the opinion that either type
of explosion is a minor problem (which it would ONLY be in comparison
with a nuclear detonation), Jay Hanson's claim is fully substantiated
for both types of explosion, in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

It strikes me as disingenuous that you would label it as a 'nuclear',
^ ^
rather than a nuclear, power plant, since it is usual to identify the
precursor to a power plant's electric output onto the grid: "coal" or
"oil-fired," "hydro," "solar," "tidal," or "wind," for example. What
WAS your rationale for doing so, if I may inquire?

Watson

[Scott Nudds]

(James D. Leslie) wrote:
: If you are looking for something that resembles truth please try

: looking at the 'World Climate Report' website and get the REAL facts
: on Global Warming, CO2 levels, high and low surface and atmospheric
: temperatures for the past 127 years. The address is www.nhes.com.

World Climate Report - funded by Western Fuels Association?

Here is what they say about themselves.

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

The World Climate Report is a research review edited by Dr. Patrick J.
Michaels. World Climate Report provides policy makers, journalists,
and the interested public with an ongoing and accurate portrayal of
the science of global climate change which will function as an
antidote to the vision of apocalypse promoted by the professional
environmental community and by the United Nations.

Funding for this publication is provided by Western Fuels Association,
Inc. with additional funding by associated companies. Western Fuels
operates on a not-for-profit basis as a supplier to consumer-owned
electric companies.

World Climate Report
P.O. Box 455
Ivy, Virginia 22945

--
<---->