Science Abstract -- Schneider and Global Cooling
Steven Hales
Schneider S. & Rasool S., ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. Science, vol.173, 9 July
1971, p.138-141
The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the
climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern 1 . In the last
few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have
increased by 7 percent 2 . During the same period, the aerosol content
of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100
percent 3 .
How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the
climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued
increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present
rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature
that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming
as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?
We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate
estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large
increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found
that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is
highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an
increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol
content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase
by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global
atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next
century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5
deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature
decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Paul D. Farrar
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:40:37 -0400, Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com>
wrote:
>Schneider S. & Rasool S., ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
>Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. Science, vol.173, 9 July
>1971, p.138-141
>
No, it's Rasool and Schneider. I guess this means you haven't actually
read the paper. It's really out of date, but it's a favorite with some
people because it's the best (but still not good enough) they can come
up with to support the fraudulent claim: "In the 70s all the
climatologists were predicting an immanent ice age!"
Now then, who might have reversed the authors, and why would
they do that?
Paul Farrar
--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
Mike Flaugher N9LLX
Speaking of the next few thousand years, I would be interested in your
thoughts regarding the possible end of the Holocene Interglacial. Looking
at the ice core samples for the last few interglacials, and the periods
in-between, it appears that CO2 varies greatly; increasing significantly
during the warm periods which seem to be brought on by Earth's orbital
parameters. Inasmuch as we have been in the Holocene for 10,000+ years,
what may happen to CO2 levels as we grow nearer the next glaciation period?
Also, have you seen the correlations made by Christiansen et al regarding
solar increase since the Maunder Minimum and mean temperature increase?
William Connolley
In article 80a2...@flaugher.thepoint.net, "Mike Flaugher N9LLX" <flau...@thepoint.net> writes:
>Speaking of the next few thousand years, I would be interested in your
>thoughts regarding the possible end of the Holocene Interglacial.
Most probably, it won't end. The radiative forcing from increaed CO2 levels
should be more than enough to keep us out of the next ice age, if conventional
theory is correct.
>Inasmuch as we have been in the Holocene for 10,000+ years,
>what may happen to CO2 levels as we grow nearer the next glaciation period?
More likely to be the other way around: CO2 affecting T.
But anyway, according to Hayes et al., Science v194 v4270 p1121 (1976) even in the
absence of human perturbation the next glacial isn't due for 20,000 years.
Or has this (admittedly rather old) reference been superceeded?
- William
---
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
William Connolley
In article 37FF...@pipeline.com, Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com> writes:
>Schneider S. & Rasool S., ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
>Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. Science, vol.173, 9 July
>1971, p.138-141
...cut...
>However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol
>content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase
>by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global
>atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next
>century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5
>deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature
>decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Yup, seen this one before guv.
See http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/sci.env.cooling.html
You just post the abstract, without any interpretation. So let me provide mine and
see if you disagree: This is a sensitivity study, not a prediction, as the paper
makes clear and the title suggests. The paper does not regard the premise (a very
large increase in aerosol) as particularly probable.
Mike Flaugher N9LLX
I guess what I'm going on is some recent material I've seen, and I think it
was on http://ousrvr2.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/cycle.html which suggest
each of the interglacials identified has been about 10 to 15,000 years in
length. Surely it's difficult to be accurate in all things. The simple fact
that Co2 levels HAVE changed in the past makes me wonder how much of
current change is man's part and how much is natural. I have this fear of
people who WANT to make everything man's fault, which of course is
something that goes back a long, long time.
William Connolley
>I guess what I'm going on is some recent material I've seen, and I think it
>was on http://ousrvr2.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/cycle.html which suggest
>each of the interglacials identified has been about 10 to 15,000 years in
>length.
The page you cite seems to have nothing to do with this.
In anycase, the past is not a sure guide to the future...
Also, it might seem that 10ky is "fairly similar" to 15kyr, but what
people tend to suggest is that since we've been in the holocene for 10+kyr and
interglacials last about 10kyr (in the absence of human intervention, of course),
"we're about due another glacial". But in that case it makes a great difference
if you think they last 10kyr or 15kyr: the next is "due" in either 0kyr (soon!)
or 5kyr (a *long* time away). This is all moot anyway, as I said, if current theory
is correct: human forcing via CO2 etc has probably exceeded orbital forcing already,
and certainly will in the future.
>Surely it's difficult to be accurate in all things
Yes, but its fairly easy to read the page you're about to cite and
check that it is relevant?
>The simple fact
>that Co2 levels HAVE changed in the past makes me wonder how much of
>current change is man's part and how much is natural. I have this fear of
>people who WANT to make everything man's fault, which of course is
>something that goes back a long, long time.
Myself, I have this fear of people who don't bother check their facts before posting
(shall I add a smiley? Oh OK then: ;-)
Scott Nudds
Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com> wrote:
: Schneider S. & Rasool S., ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. Science, vol.173, 9 July
: 1971, p.138-141
...
: An increase
: by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global
: atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next
: century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5
: deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature
: decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Can Steven Hales tell us if a sustained 3.5'C reduction in global
temperature, if sustained over a period of several years, would not
trigger an ice age?
We have seen this reference before. Posted by Global warming
denialists and those opposed to rational progress. Is this the only
reference these denialists can find to support their contention that
there was a consensus opinion among scientists of the era that an ice
age would soon be upon us?
Today there is overwhelming agreement in the scientific community
concerning the reality of a warming globe. Even the skeptics most quoted
agree that the globe will continue to warm. Yet denialists insist that
these very same people state the exact opposite.
Below we see some of the chief global warming skeptics claiming that
there is additional warming to come in the near future.
<Is there any common ground?
Of all people, Michaels insists there could be. "When it comes to it,
the modellers and the skeptics 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 - July 97
Anti-environmentalists can't be trusted. They often don't tell the
truth.
-------- McCarthies Dishonest bet ---------
Would Jay Hanson like part of the seven year bet I proposed? How about
Puchalsky or Nudds? - John McCarthy 1996/03/20
Why does Mark Friesel regard my challenge as fake? - John McCarthy
1996/03/20
When I made the challenge before I put in the proviso that the resource
be vital to civilization, because the doomsters on the newsgroup were
predicting that civilization would collapse. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
...
(After seeing that he has lost the bet)
So I'll amend the challenge. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
When his welshing is raised...
No, I don't owe Josh Halpern a dinner, because I reserve the right to my
correct errors. When I posed the challenge before, I referred to
resources essential for human life and it was a slip to leave out that
qualification. - John McCarthy 1996/03/27
--
<---->
Steven Hales
Scott Nudds wrote: some drivel...
> <Is there any common ground?
> Of all people, Michaels insists there could be. "When it comes to it,
> the modellers and the skeptics 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 - July 97
But a 1 or 1.5 degree rise is not apocalyptic and is not scary enough to
impose a carbon tax. Lindzen and Michaels effectively take the wind out
of the sails of the apocalypse abusers by saying that there will be only
a slight warming as predicted by basic radiative physics. Both of these
climatologists suggest that all feedbacks will be a net negative to
forcing.
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <34310085...@pipeline.com>,
This is the most accurate comment I have seen in a while!
I'm glad that there are some climatologists out there who are
not so dramatic. It's time for cooler heads to prevail.
Eric Swanson
In article <60s544$3cb$7...@news.hal-pc.org>, char...@hal-pc.org says...
If the net feedback is negative, then the greenhouse effect will cause
the earth to cool off. Ice Age anyone???
Eric Swanson For e-mail, remove "XS" from end of address
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter
In article
<BD8648BD721EC4D0.5A9153D0...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
eswa...@atlcom.netXS says...
>
>If the net feedback is negative, then the greenhouse effect will cause
>the earth to cool off. Ice Age anyone???
>
No, if the net feedback is negative, it just requires a larger amount of
greenhouse gasses to cause a certain amount of warming.
Peter
>the earth to cool off. Ice Age anyone???
>
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds wrote: some drivel...
: > <Is there any common ground?
: > Of all people, Michaels insists there could be. "When it comes to it,
: > the modellers and the skeptics 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 - July 97
Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com> wrote:
: But a 1 or 1.5 degree rise is not apocalyptic and is not scary enough to
: impose a carbon tax. Lindzen and Michaels effectively take the wind out
: of the sails of the apocalypse abusers by saying that there will be only
: a slight warming as predicted by basic radiative physics. Both of these
: climatologists suggest that all feedbacks will be a net negative to
: forcing.
Apparently global warming denialists have admitted defeat
Does Steven Hales really think statements by Michaels, Lindzen and
Spencer - global warming skeptics - are drivel?
Even I have more respect for these men to say that.
As to the additional expected 1'C to 1.5'C rise in the earths
temperature these men project, are we now to conclude the battle is
over, and that global warming denialists will now retract their
scientifically dishonest claim that the earth will not warm?
Have we finally established that those who claim that there will be no
warming were and are in fact nothing but ignorant denialists, scam
artists, and charlatans?
Given his earlier admission, Steven Hales has no choice but to admit
this.
Once we have established the dishonesty of the denialists, we can move
on to discussing the extent and possible consequences of the warming that
we all now apparently agree is to come.
--
<---->
John McCarthy
Nudds includes:
Once we have established the dishonesty of the denialists,
we can move on to discussing the extent and possible
consequences of the warming that we all now apparently agree
is to come.
This is the essence of the Nudds philsophy. Identify the bad
guys first. Then, if there is time, consider the facts.
--
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.
Eric Swanson
In article <61111r$4...@drn.zippo.com>, Peter....@PSS.Boeing.com says...
>
>In article
><BD8648BD721EC4D0.5A9153D0...@library-proxy.airnews.n
et>,
>eswa...@atlcom.netXS says...
>>
>
>>If the net feedback is negative, then the greenhouse effect will cause
>>the earth to cool off. Ice Age anyone???
>>
>greenhouse gasses to cause a certain amount of warming.
The posting made things sound like the negative feedback would more than
offset the positive forcing of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
As we have all learned by now, the water vapor feedback is said to be
a strong positive, amplifying the CO2 forcing.
The ocean-sea-ice-albedo feedback produced a strong positive feedback
in model experiments of the mid-1980's, but does not appear to be as
strong in more recent models, perhaps the result of a model change I
suggested.
Clouds are the subject of considerable ongoing debate. Cloud feedback
has been said to be positive or negative. I have seen reports of current
research that indicate that clouds are negative, over the whole of the
earth.
As for Ice Ages, it is noteworthy that the recent period of warmth during
he past 10,000 years appears to be an aberation which has only occured
once since the end of the Eemian, the last warm period, some 120,000 years
ago. If Ice Ages run in cycles, as current theory suggests, then another
Ice Age is on the horizon.
What we must avoid is any disturbance in climate which might trigger the
premature onset of an Ice Age. For example, with all the talk about the
earth warming up, little attention has been focused on the fact that parts
of Eastern Canada are cooling down. This cooling has been evident for more
than 20 years and balances the warming trend being experienced in Western
Canada and Alaska.
Anybody doubters out there want to comment on the record low temperatures
which occured the northeastern quarter of the U.S. this morning?
I know, one extreme event doesn't prove anything.
Any bets on December and January?
--
Onar Aam
> Have we finally established that those who claim that there will be no
>warming were and are in fact nothing but ignorant denialists, scam
>artists, and charlatans?
Exqueeze me? Who ever is claiming that an increase in greenhouse gases
will not cause the earth to warm? I think that everyone agrees on this.
The question is really how much. The socalled dissenters claim that there
will be a forced warming from a doubling of CO2, but that this warming is
negligable, less than 1 K (i.e. safely within the noise of natural
variation).
Onar.
Eric Swanson
In article <6158kd$496$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no says...
>
>
>>The posting made things sound like the negative feedback would more than
>>offset the positive forcing of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
-----[cut]----------
As a control systems engineer during my early career, I believe I
understand "positive feedback". The satellites I worked on have been
flying over your head for 25 years....
> Now, what is slightly confusing to people is the term "positive
>feedback." The term immediately suggests that some variable is
>increasing (e.g. the temperature), but that is NOT what the "positive"
>means. A positive feedback may equally well be the continuous decrease of
>a variable. Therefore if global warming were to trigger a new ice age this
>would be due to POSITIVE feedbacks, not negative ones. "Positive" refers
>to the amplification, not to the direction of change.
The "positive" refers to a "plus" input of some portion of the output of
a device with a gain (a multiplier, if you will), which is fed into the
device, in its original useage. Real world electrical amplifiers have
some negative feedback inorder to stabilize them.
>Now, if the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks this means
>that the atmosphere functions as a thermostat, trying to keep the
>temperature constant (or within some range). This is for instance why
>the temperature rises to its original level after the cooling of a
>volcanic outbreak within just a few seasons.
>
>Onar.
The atmosphere does not act like a thermostat, which is a temperature
controled switch with a deadband to shut it off after the heating or
cooling device is energized. In this process, the feedback is
accomplished by the heating (or cooling) device.
In the climate change situation, positive feedback refers to the case
in which the temperature increase resulting from a change in atmospheric
CO2 is amplified by other processes in the system. Most of the warming
which GCM's predict to occur as the result of a doubling in CO2 is the
result of these positive feedback mechanisms incorporated in the models.
Much of the debate about climate change involves questions about the
validity of the models which are used to represent these mechanisms.
John McCarthy
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>
>: Nudds includes:
>: Once we have established the dishonesty of the denialists,
>: we can move on to discussing the extent and possible
>: consequences of the warming that we all now apparently agree
>: is to come.
>
>John McCarthy wrote:
>: This is the essence of the Nudds philsophy. Identify the bad
>: guys first. Then, if there is time, consider the facts.
>
> The "bad guys" were identified a long time ago Mr. McCarthy. You will
>probably be pleased to know that you are a member of the denialist cult.
>
> We have now established that various global warming denialists have been
>misrepresenting the statements made by the various scientsist that they
>claim support their position. Specifically, global warming denialists
>have insisted that the globe has not and will not warm according to
>denialist scientists.
>
> Yet we see the very same scientists claiming that the globe will warm.
>
> It is a simple matter to conclude their guilt. And now that we have
>established it, we can move on to a more productive discussion of effect.
>
> Do you object to this or do you wish to continue with denialist scam
>that global warming is a myth, contrary to the statments of even the most
>contrarian atmospheric scientist?
>
>
We see again that Nudds prefers attacking people to discussing facts.
My Web pages discussed the global warming issue since 1995 and have
never taken a position on whether it is occurring and how much. Where
I have taken a strong position is on the sustainability of material
progress, whether or not there is global warming. I have also taken a
position against the bandwagon approach to promoting global warming
scenarios. Clinton is doing that now, CNN has just pulled the ads of
the dissenters, and Nudds calls dissenters "denialists".
I only post this for the benefit of new readers of sci.environment. I
don't imagine that it will prevent Nudds from including me in his
scapegoat category of "denialists".
******************************************
Also for the benefit of new readers.
The claim is untrue that resource exhaustion or pollution requires
that the advanced countries stop their material progress or that
backward countries refrain from advancing to the level of the present
advanced countries. The world can support at least 15 billion people
at the American standard of living on present technology, except for
the need in perhaps 40 years to find a substitute for petroleum and
the possible need to replace burning carbon as a source of energy on
account of global warming.
These contentions are supported in the collection of Web pages
reachable at http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/. Comments
and suggestions for improvement are solicited including naming
questions that are not adequately treated.
I plan to post this announcement about every two months.
Steven Hales
Scott Nudds wrote trying to save face:
I repeat no apocalyptic result. Pass the CO2 and dump the treaty.
Onar Aam
>The posting made things sound like the negative feedback would more than
>offset the positive forcing of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
You obviously don't understand the concept of negative feedback.
A negative feedback is an attractor of a dymaical system whereas as a
positive feedback is a repulsor. Negative feedback systems are said to
be homeostatic, they resist change, compensate it. Positive feedbacks
on the other hand propulse change, continuously escalating it.
One example of an artificial negative feedback system is the thermostat.
It tries to keep the temperature constant. An example of a positive
feedback is a speaker + microphone system. If the amplification is large
enough the sound entering the microphone will come out ever louder of
the speaker resulting in an awful whining sound.
Now, what is slightly confusing to people is the term "positive
feedback." The term immediately suggests that some variable is
increasing (e.g. the temperature), but that is NOT what the "positive"
means. A positive feedback may equally well be the continuous decrease of
a variable. Therefore if global warming were to trigger a new ice age this
would be due to POSITIVE feedbacks, not negative ones. "Positive" refers to
the amplification, not to the direction of change.
Scott Nudds
Eric Swanson
In article <618kb6$gnj$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no says...
>
>>As a control systems engineer during my early career, I believe I
>
>You didn't exactly give the impression of understanding the
>concepts.
Neither do you. Your other posting regrding the calculation of the
warming using strictly the Stefan-Boltzmann law ignores many of the
complexities of the problem of climate change.
>>The "positive" refers to a "plus" input of some portion of the output of
>>a device with a gain (a multiplier, if you will), which is fed into the
>>device, in its original useage. Real world electrical amplifiers have
>>some negative feedback inorder to stabilize them.
>
>Ok, you're referring to the
>
>inf
>-- n
>\ a
>/_
>n=1
>
>0 < a < 1
>
>kind of functions.
I couldn't say, since I do not know what your mathematics refers to.
>Those indeed are positive contributers (even though
>the sign of the contribution can be negative.) I can understand why
>you would call them feedbacks, but calling them positive feedbacks are
>misleading. In my vocabulary positive feedbacks refers to an ever
>diverging growth or decay. What you're talking about is equilibrial
>feedbacks.
I presume that you are unfamiliar with electrical engineering or
dynamical system theory. Are you using chaos theory, or some other
mathematical construct as a frame of reference??
I did not think up the label "feedback" to discribe the various interactions
in the climate system. It would probably have been clearer to more people
if the term "amplify" had been used originally instead of "positive
feedback" and "attenate" instead of "negative feedback".
>>The atmosphere does not act like a thermostat
>
>Of course it doesn't. A thermostat is an artificial system that is
>designed to mimic homeostatic systems. And to be fair, if we disregard
>the sun the atmosphere is not a homeostatic system. Viewed as one system,
>however, (atmosphere + sun) it probably is close to homeostatic. The
>equilibrium region is probably largely determined by the solar constant.
>(which of course is not constant. :-)
Since the earth must radiate the energy it receives out to deep space,
whcn averaged over time and surface area, global warming will probably
not change the average radiative temperature of the planet, provided
cloud cover does not change the total amount of short wave energy reflected
back to space. However, the temperature distribution versis altitude will
likely change, as will the transport of energy from the tropics to the poles
by mass transport within the oceans and the atmosphere.
>>In this process, the feedback is
>>accomplished by the heating (or cooling) device.
>
>Where the heat is coming from is irrelevant. If we wanted to we could
>call insolation inhibiting clouds a kind of fuzzy "switch" that "turns
>off" the sun.
Again, you first used the term thermostat. From that point on, I was
refering to your analogy of a manmade structure, not to the atmosphere.
A better analogy would be an unheated structure with the windows, walls
and roof representing the atmosphere.
The thermal properties of the atmosphere would be likened to the windows
for the incoming short wave radiation and the insulated walls and roof
would represent the outgoing long wave energy. The result is a closer
fit than the often used "greenhouse" analogy. As long as the outside
temperature and the solar energy entering the windows remain constant,
the temperature within the structure will eventually reach a constant, etc.
In the climate system, there are clouds, ice caps, precipitation, soil
moisture, vegitational changes, to list only a few variables. For example,
some models suggest that increased precipitation at high latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere may reduce or even stop the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic ocean. The last time this occured, about 11,000
years ago, ice age conditions rapidly occured, interrupting the melting of
the glaciers over North America for about 1000 years.
Add in the fact that precipitation in the form of snow is also likely
to increase due to global warming and what have you got?
The warming the planet may trigger another ice age.
Put that in your handy dandy one dimensional model of social and economic
interactions and tell me what would happen next....
Onar Aam
>As a control systems engineer during my early career, I believe I
>understand "positive feedback". The satellites I worked on have been
>flying over your head for 25 years....
You didn't exactly give the impression of understanding the
concepts.
>The "positive" refers to a "plus" input of some portion of the output of
>a device with a gain (a multiplier, if you will), which is fed into the
>device, in its original useage. Real world electrical amplifiers have
>some negative feedback inorder to stabilize them.
Ok, you're referring to the
inf
-- n
\ a
/_
n=1
0 < a < 1
kind of functions. Those indeed are positive contributers (even though
the sign of the contribution can be negative.) I can understand why
you would call them feedbacks, but calling them positive feedbacks are
misleading. In my vocabulary positive feedbacks refers to an ever
diverging growth or decay. What you're talking about is equilibrial
feedbacks.
>The atmosphere does not act like a thermostat
Of course it doesn't. A thermostat is an artificial system that is
designed to mimic homeostatic systems. And to be fair, if we disregard
the sun the atmosphere is not a homeostatic system. Viewed as one system,
however, (atmosphere + sun) it probably is close to homeostatic. The
equilibrium region is probably largely determined by the solar constant.
(which of course is not constant. :-)
>In this process, the feedback is
>accomplished by the heating (or cooling) device.
Where the heat is coming from is irrelevant. If we wanted to we could
call insolation inhibiting clouds a kind of fuzzy "switch" that "turns
off" the sun.
Onar.
Steven Hales
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Have we finally established that those who claim that there will be no
> : >warming were and are in fact nothing but ignorant denialists, scam
> : >artists, and charlatans?
True to form Nudds again engages in logical fallacies. This time it is
the "Case of the Complex Question". By asking, "when did you stop
doubting global warming" Nudds acts like a not too clever lawyer asking
the accused mysoginist "Now tell me sir, when did you stop beating your
wife". The problem with this question is that legitimate GW doubters
have only doubted magnitudes and feedbacks not that radiative forcing
takes place or is now taking place, the measurement of the latter being
a ratio of signal to noise problem.
Hyperbole by the political among us, self included, lead others to
conclude that our true views are finely demarcated but like Stephen
Schneider at times we need to forego the subtelties and hit our
opponents across the forehead with a 2x4 to get their attention.
Regards,
Steve
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Have we finally established that those who claim that there will be no
: >warming were and are in fact nothing but ignorant denialists, scam
: >artists, and charlatans?
Onar Aam (on...@hsr.no) wrote:
: Exqueeze me? Who ever is claiming that an increase in greenhouse gases
: will not cause the earth to warm? I think that everyone agrees on this.
A very short list. Perhaps you should look before you comment...
---
Thinking Magazine #6 02-20-92
Global Warming - Environmental Fraud
... I'm here to tell you that global warming is a myth...
---
The Environmental Movement and the Value of "Moderation"
- Brian K. Yoder -
... Actually, global warming is already on its way out as more and more
scientists stand up and point out the theory's faults. ...
---
Rush Limbaugh:
"Algore told the Washington Times on May 19, 1993: 'That
increased accumulations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2,
cause global warming, there is no longer any serious debate.
There are a few naysayers far outside the consensus who try to
dispute that. They are not really taken seriously by the mainstream
scientific community.' Yet we saw in the last chapter that there is
nothing resembling a consensus on this issue among scientists who
have some expertise in this area. In fact, a majority clearly does
not believe global warming has occurred."
---
John Alway jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier wrote:
No. I only know of that there is a great deal of fraud in the "science"
that comes out of the gov't. It covers everything from second-hand
smoke, to asbestos, to global warming, to DDT... etc. etc.
---
Michael John Hide wrote:
I think it has been proven to be a big scam, same as global warming.
---
Tom Corey nojun...@erols.com wrote:
Most available real science points to a coming ice age not global
warming.
---
George Walker ge...@mail.telesouth1.com wrote:
First they would frighten you into believing their lies that a Global
Warming
is to occur.
---
Shannon Wagoner sha...@som-uky.campus.mci.net wrote:
I believe, and i believe global warming is a big scam.
---
Jeffrey S. Curtis cur...@anl.gov wrote:
In fact, I try to make it a point to use a little too
much hair spray every morning just to make up for all of the PC
enviroweenies out there who got sucked in by the global warming
scam.
---
gweaver <gwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
By the way, all this carbon dioxide pollution business will prove to be
the most bogus scam of all!!!
---
hesp...@smart.net wrote:
greenhouse effect and/or global warming is a fraud.
---
Joe Long j...@mti.net wrote:
"Global Warming" as a problem requiring political solutions is a fraud,
perpetrated to drum up support for dubious political actions.
---
(Jeff) adde...@interaccess.com wrote:
Global warming IS a FRAUD.
---
hesp...@smart.net wrote:
The point that I have been trying to make is that even *if there were*
such a phenomenon as Global Warming (tm), which I do not for a moment
support or believe...
---
adde...@interaccess.com writes:
Global Warming is a crock. . . .
---
Gi...@theloonybin.com wrote:
Global warming IS a fraud -
---
From: Lance Neustaeter
What I don't believe in is the apoclyptic doomsday environmental
theories (like global warming, ozone loss, &c ad nauseam). These all are
essentially attacks against capitalism, are propelled by left-wingers...
You wrote:
: The question is really how much.
I agree this is the question. Have done for years. Denialists will not
admit that warming is possible. They have been suckered by the "the world
is so big" lie sponsored by American conservatives.
Onar Aam
>You wrote:
>: The question is really how much.
>
> I agree this is the question. Have done for years. Denialists will not
>admit that warming is possible. They have been suckered by the "the world
>is so big" lie sponsored by American conservatives.
Of all the quotes you gave me it seems like most of them referred to
"Global warming" as a scare rather than as a physical phenomena. Some were
clearly innacurate such as Limbaugh's statement:
"Yet we saw in the last chapter that there is
nothing resembling a consensus on this issue among scientists who
have some expertise in this area. In fact, a majority clearly does
not believe global warming has occurred."
In reality a majority of meteorologists do not believe that any
significant ANTHROPOGENIC global warming has occured in the last 150
years. They don't deny that natural increases in global temperature has
occured.
However, statements such as...
'' "Global Warming" as a problem requiring political solutions is a fraud,
perpetrated to drum up support for dubious political actions. ''
is probably accurate. Note that he does not refer to global warming
as such, but as it being a problem which we have to vigorously fight. The
above statement does not deny that anthropogenic warming will occur, it
questions its status as a _problem_.
Those people who deny that there is such as thing as a greenhouse effect
are obviously ignorants. No serious climate scientist (including the
naysayers) question greenhouse warming as a phenomenon. It's just a matter
of determining its amplitude. I belong to the category that believes that
the effects of CO2 doubling will not be very significant, a 1 degree
increase in global temperature at most under normal climatic conditions.
Such an increase does not justify any preventive actions.
Onar.
Scott Nudds
Steven Hales wrote:
: Scott Nudds wrote trying to save face:
: I repeat no apocalyptic result. Pass the CO2 and dump the treaty.
I have said nothing of the kind. Perhaps Hales will quote where I have
said this.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: >John McCarthy wrote:
: >: This is the essence of the Nudds philsophy. Identify the bad
: >: guys first. Then, if there is time, consider the facts.
: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
: > The "bad guys" were identified a long time ago Mr. McCarthy. You will
: >probably be pleased to know that you are a member of the denialist cult.
: >
: > We have now established that various global warming denialists have been
: >misrepresenting the statements made by the various scientsist that they
: >claim support their position. Specifically, global warming denialists
: >have insisted that the globe has not and will not warm according to
: >denialist scientists.
: >
: > Yet we see the very same scientists claiming that the globe will warm.
: >
: > It is a simple matter to conclude their guilt. And now that we have
: >established it, we can move on to a more productive discussion of effect.
: >
: > Do you object to this or do you wish to continue with denialist scam
: >that global warming is a myth, contrary to the statments of even the most
: >contrarian atmospheric scientist?
John McCarthy wrote:
: We see again that Nudds prefers attacking people to discussing facts.
Here is a fact. Chief skeptics Michael's, Lindzen, and Spencer as well
as the hand full of other skeptics admit that the surface temperature
will continue to increase as CO2 levels rise.
Yet the words of very skeptics are portrayed by climate change
denialists in their insistence that adding CO2 will not further increase
warming.
"Is there any common ground?
Of all people, Michaels insists there could be. "When it comes to it,
the modellers and the skeptics are not so far apart," he says. Indeed,
if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and other skeptics 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."
John McCarthy wrote:
: My Web pages discussed the global warming issue since 1995 and have
: never taken a position on whether it is occurring and how much.
I am well aware of this and can see how the last paragraph in my
previous post could be interpreted as implying that you have been a
climate change denialist. This was not the intent. Your denialism
manifests itself in other areas.
With this clarification offered, I repeat the question...
Do you object to this or do you wish to continue with denialist scam
that global warming is a myth, contrary to the statments of even the
most contrarian atmospheric scientist?
And I add...
Or would you rather see the discussion move from ridiculous denialism
to a rational discussion of the extent and effects of the additional
warming that is to come?
--
<---->
Steven Hales
If its not apocalyptic in your opinion then why aren't you opposing the
UNFCCC due to wrap up in Kyoto in December of this year. If it is not
potentially apocalyptic in your opinion then you must be incredibly
stupid not to oppose mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions. If it is
not apocalyptic in your opinion then why are you blathering on in
support of tax increases or tradeable permits.
Peter
In article <344456EB...@pipeline.com>, Steven says...
>
>If its not apocalyptic in your opinion then why aren't you opposing the
>UNFCCC due to wrap up in Kyoto in December of this year. If it is not
>potentially apocalyptic in your opinion then you must be incredibly
>stupid not to oppose mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions. If it is
>not apocalyptic in your opinion then why are you blathering on in
>support of tax increases or tradeable permits.
Is it necessary that a problem have to be bad enough to be called "apocalyptic"
before it is considered desirable to do something about it?
Scott Nudds
: > Steven Hales wrote:
: > : Scott Nudds wrote trying to save face:
: > : I repeat no apocalyptic result. Pass the CO2 and dump the treaty.
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > I have said nothing of the kind. Perhaps Hales will quote where I have
: > said this.
Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com> wrote:
: If its not apocalyptic in your opinion then why aren't you opposing the
: UNFCCC due to wrap up in Kyoto in December of this year.
Why would I oppose change in a sensible direction? And why does
Conservative Hales believe that change should only be driven by warnings
of impending apocalypse?
As a rational person, and someone who is scientifically literate, I
observe and understand the warnings given by the worlds scientists, and
agree that reduction in CO2 emissions are a prudent course of action,
particularly with the bulk of evidence supporting the notion of
continued climate change.
Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com> wrote:
: If it is not
: potentially apocalyptic in your opinion then you must be incredibly
: stupid not to oppose mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions.
Quite the contrary, those who do not support them are incredibly
stupid since they are knowingly altering the climate, and this
alteration will have hither to unseen and unpredicted effects.
Finally, I said that I had not claimed apocalypse. This does not mean
that continued climate change will not be apocalyptic. The ultimate
climate is currently seen only as a generality. Predictions are being
refined, and the picture is becoming clearer all the time.
There are those who demand "proof", and demand no action until there
is "perfect" knowledge.
Such demands are nothing more than childish delay tactics.
I suggest you give them up. Human induced climate change is now
accepted by virtually every scientist. Over the last several decades
it has steadily grown converts without retreat. It is predicted,
supported by large amounts of undeniable evidence evidence, and
accepted.
The battle for recognition is long over. Only conservative crackpots
continue to sing their loser denialist mantra.
--
<---->
Steven Hales
Scott Nudds wrote: again trying to save face
>
> : > Steven Hales wrote:
> : > : Scott Nudds wrote trying to save face:
> : > : I repeat no apocalyptic result. Pass the CO2 and dump the treaty.
>
> : Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > I have said nothing of the kind. Perhaps Hales will quote where I have
> : > said this.
>
> Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> : If its not apocalyptic in your opinion then why aren't you opposing the
> : UNFCCC due to wrap up in Kyoto in December of this year.
>
> Why would I oppose change in a sensible direction? And why does
> Conservative Hales believe that change should only be driven by warnings
> of impending apocalypse?
What other reasonable reason would there be to drastically alter the
economy with energy taxes or tradeable permits if there were not some
kind of apocalyptic result not to act? You really are stupid aren't
you.
>
> As a rational person, and someone who is scientifically literate, I
> observe and understand the warnings given by the worlds scientists, and
> agree that reduction in CO2 emissions are a prudent course of action,
> particularly with the bulk of evidence supporting the notion of
> continued climate change.
They are warnings of apcolaypse. Haven't you been listening.
>
> Steven Hales <sha...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> : If it is not
> : potentially apocalyptic in your opinion then you must be incredibly
> : stupid not to oppose mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions.
>
> Quite the contrary, those who do not support them are incredibly
> stupid since they are knowingly altering the climate, and this
> alteration will have hither to unseen and unpredicted effects.
Aha! He admits there will be apocalyptic results.
>
> Finally, I said that I had not claimed apocalypse. This does not mean
> that continued climate change will not be apocalyptic. The ultimate
> climate is currently seen only as a generality. Predictions are being
> refined, and the picture is becoming clearer all the time.
Exactly. We are being told to act upon the probablistic opinion of
computer modelers to take drastic action today to avert apocalypse
tomorrow. But no the picture is not getting clearer it seems to be
getting muddier as more competent climatologists speak up to challenge
the orthodoxy.
>
> There are those who demand "proof", and demand no action until there
> is "perfect" knowledge.
I demand no such thing. I only demand that my government protect me and
my countrymen from an assault on our economic freedom.
>
> Such demands are nothing more than childish delay tactics.
>
> I suggest you give them up. Human induced climate change is now
> accepted by virtually every scientist. Over the last several decades
> it has steadily grown converts without retreat. It is predicted,
> supported by large amounts of undeniable evidence evidence, and
> accepted.
Where is the evidence? Satellites show a statistically significant
cooling. The poles are colder on average. The South. Hemi. is not
warming. The urban heat island effect skews the CRU and GISS climate
record. On this newsgroup we have climatologists who try to explain
away every of contrary empirical datum presented as if they were
defending the holy grail.
>
> The battle for recognition is long over. Only conservative crackpots
> continue to sing their loser denialist mantra.
You should have gone for aliteration there Scott. Better luck next
time. Oh, btw its chant their mantra not sing their mantra.
Ta Ta
>
> --
> <---->
Danette & Murray Root
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:37:45 -1000, Jay Hanson <jha...@aloha.net> wrote in
sci.environment:
=> Did you ever see that old Edmund O'Brien movie DEAD ON ARRIVAL?
=> It opens with a scene of O'Brien walking into the police station
=> to report a murder -- his own.
=>
=> It seems that someone slipped a slow-acting poison into his drink.
=> By the time that he discovered the poison, it was too late for an
=> antidote. Now he's a walking corpse, all he can do is try to catch
=> the guy that killed him.
=>
=> Same thing with us and global warming. By the time we even heard
=> about it, the corporations had already murdered us.
=>
=> I have compiled a collection of information about possible global
=> warming positive feedbacks.
=>
=> Visit my web site at: http://dieoff.org/page124.htm
Before you schedule the funeral, you might want to look at :
http://www.nhes.com/home.html
----
Wizard's First Rule:
People are stupid.
Wizard's Second Rule:
The greatest harm can come from the best intentions.
Wizard's Third Rule:
Passion rules Reason.
----
Jay Hanson
Danette & Murray Root wrote:
> => I have compiled a collection of information about possible global
> => warming positive feedbacks.
> =>
> => Visit my web site at: http://dieoff.org/page124.htm
>
> Before you schedule the funeral, you might want to look at :
> http://www.nhes.com/home.html
Are these the same folks that brought us Joe Camel?
Jay
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Why would I oppose change in a sensible direction? And why does
: > Conservative Hales believe that change should only be driven by warnings
: > of impending apocalypse?
Steven Hales wrote:
: What other reasonable reason would there be to drastically alter the
: economy with energy taxes or tradeable permits if there were not some
: kind of apocalyptic result not to act? You really are stupid aren't
: you.
Quite simply because the changes that are required are inevitable, and
within sight. Your children and your childrens children will be forced
to take the steps that you are too cowardly to take.
GW denialsits are irrationally opposed to progress.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > As a rational person, and someone who is scientifically literate, I
: > observe and understand the warnings given by the worlds scientists, and
: > agree that reduction in CO2 emissions are a prudent course of action,
: > particularly with the bulk of evidence supporting the notion of
: > continued climate change.
Steven Hales wrote:
: They are warnings of apcolaypse. Haven't you been listening.
Denialists like yourself have proven themselves to be masters of self
deception.
What are these "warnings of apolalypse" that you claim are being made
by the worlds scientists? Do you believe they are something to be
listened to? Or do you believe they are nothing but self deception on
your part?
Steven Hales wrote:
: We are being told to act upon the probablistic opinion of
: computer modelers to take drastic action today to avert apocalypse
: tomorrow.
Computer modelers, atmospheric scientists, physicists, chemists,
geographers, etc. etc. etc.
It occurs to me that the warnings of the worlds scientists should be
heeded.
You on the other hand insist on the basis of faith alone that no
action be taken.
Rational people have rejected your political faith.
Steven Hales wrote:
: But no the picture is not getting clearer it seems to be
: getting muddier as more competent climatologists speak up to challenge
: the orthodoxy.
I guess this means that Pat Michaels, Lindzen and Spencer among others
are no longer considered "competent" by members of your denialist camp,
since they have publicly admitted that increasing CO2 will cause
temperatures to continue to rise.
"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
Does Hales now insist that Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and the others now
belong to the conspiracy of scientists who are lying and "scamming" the
public with regard to global warming?
Excuse me while I laugh.
: > There are those who demand "proof", and demand no action until there
: > is "perfect" knowledge.
Steven Hales wrote:
: I demand no such thing. I only demand that my government protect me and
: my countrymen from an assault on our economic freedom.
The same demands have been made by legions of fools who oppose
pollution controls of all varieties. Fortunately society has been
smart enough to disregard your corrupt ignorance, and as a result our
air, our water and in general our local environment has seen some
improvement.
If we had listened to the fools who demanded no action, this continent
would truly be in pathetic shape.
Steven Hales wrote:
: Satellites show a statistically significant cooling.
Of what? Please tell us what satellite measurements measure? Surface
temperature? Certainly not. So what are the measurements of John Boy?
Steven Hales wrote:
: The poles are colder on average.
Liar.
Steven Hales wrote:
: The South. Hemi. is not warming.
Liar.
Steven Hales wrote:
: The urban heat island effect skews the CRU and GISS climate
: record.
An effect that has been removed from the measurements, and still they
show warming.
The battle for recognition is long over. Only conservative crackpots
continue to sing their loser denialist mantra.
--
<---->
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
> you are too cowardly to take.
>
> GW denialsits are irrationally opposed to progress.
>
> Denialists like yourself have proven themselves to be masters of self
> deception.
>
> Liar.
>
> Liar.
>
> Only conservative crackpots
> continue to sing their loser denialist mantra.
>
Anyone who insists on spending so much bandwidth on name calling must
have a pretty weak argument - altenatively ... perhaps it is just the
messenger.:)
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Scott Nudds
David Gossman wrote:
: Anyone who insists on spending so much bandwidth on name calling must
: have a pretty weak argument - altenatively ... perhaps it is just the
: messenger.:)
David Gossman doesn't like me referring to liars as "liars". He would
rather I use some politically correct term in order that the lies remain
hidden.
---
"I'm not going to get involved in any of that peer-reviewed
mumbo-jumbo." - Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: > David Gossman wrote:
: > : Anyone who insists on spending so much bandwidth on name calling must
: > : have a pretty weak argument - altenatively ... perhaps it is just the
: > : messenger.:)
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > David Gossman doesn't like me referring to liars as "liars". He would
: > rather I use some politically correct term in order that the lies remain
: > hidden.
David Gossman wrote:
: From one of the most "politically correct" liberal/socialists on the net
: - now that is name calling! Actually I prefer civil discourse, something
: I'm not sure Mr Nudds would understand in any context.
Gossman's post is quite unclear. Is he referring to himself as a
politically correct liberal/socialist? It does not make sense for him
to be referring to me as a "politically correct" socialist, since
Gossman complains that I am being politically incorrect by referring to
liars as "liars".
I perfer honesty. Hence I will continue to refer to those who lie as
"liars".
Liars will not like this.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Gossman's post is quite unclear. Is he referring to himself as a
: > politically correct liberal/socialist?
David Gossman wrote:
: Do I percieve a backhanded attempt at name calling? No, I guess Mr Nudds
: just can't deal with a little humor when it comes his way.
Gossman sees ghosts. He should see a question. He does not answer the
question. The ghosts have distracted him from reality.
Perhaps he will answer the question now that I have blown the ghosts
away.
David Gossman wrote:
: Heaven forbid, Mr Nudds, I would never refer to you as "politically
: incorrect".
Gossman continues to confuse himsef. In this very thread he claimed
that I am not playing nice, and calling the children who post here liars
when they do not tell the truth. Does Gossman believe that calling a liar
a "liar", is being politically correct? If so, then lets have more
political correctness. If not, then why does he say that he would never
refer to me as "politically incorrect."
Quite frankly, I am somewhat confused by this business about political
corectness. Political correctness is about avoiding hurtful labels and
stereotypes.
It appears to me that conservatives hate political correctness because
it robs them of the stereotypes and hate filled labels that are their
stock and trade.
One need only listen to American radio talk shows to have this
observation confirmed.
Perhaps Gossman will explain to us what a "welfare nigger" is. I've
been hearing this quite a bit on conservative talk shows in the last year,
and also in other places that conservatives frequent.
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> : Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Gossman's post is quite unclear. Is he referring to himself as a
> : > politically correct liberal/socialist?
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Do I percieve a backhanded attempt at name calling? No, I guess Mr Nudds
> : just can't deal with a little humor when it comes his way.
>
> Gossman sees ghosts. He should see a question. He does not answer the
> question. The ghosts have distracted him from reality.
>
> Perhaps he will answer the question now that I have blown the ghosts
> away.
Since you apparently can't deal with humor or the English language I
will answer your question. I was referring to you as "one of the most
"politically correct" liberal/socialists".
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Heaven forbid, Mr Nudds, I would never refer to you as "politically
> : incorrect".
>
> Gossman continues to confuse himsef. In this very thread he claimed
> that I am not playing nice, and calling the children who post here liars
> when they do not tell the truth. Does Gossman believe that calling a liar
> a "liar", is being politically correct? If so, then lets have more
> political correctness. If not, then why does he say that he would never
> refer to me as "politically incorrect."
Mr Nudds, I think you are the one that is confused. Certainly you of all
people must know that only a liberal can call someone a liar and other
vile names and still be considered politically correct.
>
> Quite frankly, I am somewhat confused by this business about political
> corectness. Political correctness is about avoiding hurtful labels and
> stereotypes.
Then why did you use the term in the first place? Are you now just
trying to confuse yourself.:)
>
> It appears to me that conservatives hate political correctness because
> it robs them of the stereotypes and hate filled labels that are their
> stock and trade.
Only because it remains politically correct for liberals such as
yourself to continue the vile name calling. I will again point out that
anyone whom must resort to such name calling must have little else of
substance to say. Quite frankly I would suggest that this applies to
anyone, no matter their political inclination. In a sci group it is
uncalled for and you were the one engaged in the activity, not a
conservative talk show host.
>
> One need only listen to American radio talk shows to have this
> observation confirmed.
>
> Perhaps Gossman will explain to us what a "welfare nigger" is. I've
> been hearing this quite a bit on conservative talk shows in the last year,
> and also in other places that conservatives frequent.
Sorry I won't take the bait. It is neither a term that I use or would
consider using. In fact your use of the term may be the first time I
have heard it - of course I very infrequently listen to "talk shows".
I'm sure that Mr Nudds can explain its relevance to sci.environment.
--
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Gossman's post is quite unclear. Is he referring to himself as a
: > politically correct liberal/socialist?
...
David Gossman wrote:
: Since you apparently can't deal with humor or the English language I
: will answer your question. I was referring to you as "one of the most
: "politically correct" liberal/socialists".
Well then, the alternate explanation I penned and which you edited out
applies.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Gossman continues to confuse himsef. In this very thread he claimed
: > that I am not playing nice, and calling the children who post here liars
: > when they do not tell the truth. Does Gossman believe that calling a liar
: > a "liar", is being politically correct? If so, then lets have more
: > political correctness. If not, then why does he say that he would never
: > refer to me as "politically incorrect."
David Gossman wrote:
: Mr Nudds, I think you are the one that is confused. Certainly you of all
: people must know that only a liberal can call someone a liar and other
: vile names and still be considered politically correct.
This may be true in the fantasy world that Conservative Extremists
like Gossman have invented for themselves. "Political correctness" is a
villan manufactured by them, dishonestly engendered with perverse
characteristics by them, and presented to the public by them as their
straw man, whipping boy.
I note that once again Gossman fails to answer my question. This
makes it appear as if he has something to hide. I will therefore ask it
again.
Does Gossman believe that calling a liar a "liar", is being politically
correct? If so, then lets have more political correctness. If not,
then why does he say that he would never refer to me as "politically
incorrect."
: > Quite frankly, I am somewhat confused by this business about political
: > corectness. Political correctness is about avoiding hurtful labels and
: > stereotypes.
David Gossman wrote:
: Then why did you use the term in the first place?
Does Gossman believe that the word "liar" is a hurtful term? Or the
word Extremist, or denialist?
In reality we find the hurtful terms coming from his conservative
brethren. Those who refer to the poor as "welfare vermin", "welfare
niggers", "scum", "environazis", "econazis", etc.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > It appears to me that conservatives hate political correctness because
: > it robs them of the stereotypes and hate filled labels that are their
: > stock and trade.
David Gossman wrote:
: Only because it remains politically correct for liberals such as
: yourself to continue the vile name calling.
A false implication that makes you less than honest Gossman. I
suggest that if you don't like being described by the term "liar", you
start telling the truth.
What makes it difficult for you to understand this Gossman? Your
Conservative ideology?
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Perhaps Gossman will explain to us what a "welfare nigger" is. I've
: > been hearing this quite a bit on conservative talk shows in the last year,
: > and also in other places that conservatives frequent.
David Gossman wrote:
: Sorry I won't take the bait. It is neither a term that I use or would
: consider using.
Don't change the topic Gossman. Why do your conservative brothers use
such terms to discribe their countrymen? Why have conservatives in this
very newsgroup referred to the poor as "vermin". Why have I seen your
conservative brethren endorce the murder of those who receive welfare,
claiming that they are "only worthy of death"? Sounds like they were
referring to vermin doesn't it?
Why have I seen your conservative brothers endorce the random murder
of police officers, the murder of doctors, the random murder of
government employees, etc?
Why do we find your conservative organizations referring to law
enforcement officers as "jack booted thugs"?
Clearly the hateful name calling and violent political rhetoric is
coming from your conservative brethren Gossman, just as it always has.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Richard
It is not necessary to name-call to make your
point!!
in fact it distracts the reader.
The argument is almost always lost when
accusations are made in place of fact.
Also remove reference to liberal and
conservative
and good ideas will rise to the top.
Richard
David Gossman
Richard answered before I had a chance and did a much better job than I
have.
Thanks Richard.
John McCarthy
So far as I can see Nudds's score on calling people posting to
sci.environment liars is zero. Not one of the people he has called a
liar on sci.environment is a liar.
--
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.
Rich Puchalsky
John McCarthy (j...@steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: So far as I can see Nudds's score on calling people posting to
: sci.environment liars is zero. Not one of the people he has called a
: liar on sci.environment is a liar.
McCarthy ignores the documented fact that he was proven to be a liar on
stratospheric ozone depletion, having kept a demonstrably false statement
on his Web page long after it had been shown to be deliberately incorrect.
This was his claim that UV-B had not appreciably increased anywhere at the
Earth's surface due to stratospheric ozone depletion. He finally retracted it
when confronted by a sufficiently authoritative source.
But I wouldn't expect him to admit this, of course.
Scott Nudds
Richard wrote:
: It is not necessary to name-call to make your point!!
: in fact it distracts the reader.
Name calling is intended to cause damage to a persons reputation. For
example, on several occasions I have been referred to here as a "dirty
socialist" or "communist", even though I have no political affiliation.
This is name calling.
We have also seen here, individuals referring to people on welfare as
vermin, swine, parasites, etc. Clearly labels assigned to promote hate.
I on the other hand do my best to clarify a persons character through
the appropriate use of labels. I have never referred to anyone as
vermin, or parasites or suckling pigs - unless of course they have used
such terms themselves.
There is evil and ignorance in this world, and unless we know where
this reservoir of evil and ignorance resides we are not going to do much
to counter it. To that end I identify right wing extremists, so that
the origin of the evil and ignorance is clear.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: John McCarthy (j...@steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: : So far as I can see Nudds's score on calling people posting to
: : sci.environment liars is zero. Not one of the people he has called a
: : liar on sci.environment is a liar.
(Rich Puchalsky) wrote:
: McCarthy ignores the documented fact that he was proven to be a liar on
: stratospheric ozone depletion, having kept a demonstrably false statement
: on his Web page long after it had been shown to be deliberately incorrect.
Lets not forget McCarthy refusing to honor a lost bet, and attempting
to change the conditions of the bet after he lost.
Also, lets remember his repeated lies regarding the number of reactors
the world will need to be fully powered by nuclear. His initial
estimate was 300 and that inflated to over a hundred thousand. But this
required months of prodding, correction, retraction, prodding,
correction, retraction, etc...
McCarthy has been yapping quite a bit less since he lost these
battles. He doesn't say nearly as many stupid and deceitful things he
used to.
I consider this progress, and I hope he sustains it.
-------- McCarthies Dishonest bet ---------
Would Jay Hanson like part of the seven year bet I proposed? How about
Puchalsky or Nudds? - John McCarthy 1996/03/20
Why does Mark Friesel regard my challenge as fake? - John McCarthy
1996/03/20
When I made the challenge before I put in the proviso that the resource
be vital to civilization, because the doomsters on the newsgroup were
predicting that civilization would collapse. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
...
(After seeing that he has lost the bet)
So I'll amend the challenge. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
When his welshing is raised...
No, I don't owe Josh Halpern a dinner, because I reserve the right to my
correct errors. When I posed the challenge before, I referred to
resources essential for human life and it was a slip to leave out that
qualification. - John McCarthy 1996/03/27
--
<---->