Campaign Finance and Global Warming Uncertainty
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.
It is alleged that the Clinton Administration received
foreign campaign funding, and that such contributions affected
policy decisions. But we do not have proof.
It is alleged that Earth faces a global warming catastrophe
caused by burning fossil fuels. But we do not have proof.
These allegations are neither easily proven nor disproven.
We must carefully evaluate available evidence and act reasonably
given incomplete information.
Regarding campaign funding, we are reasonably certain that
SOMEBODY did SOMETHING wrong, based on available testimony and
the number of associates of the Clinton Administration who have
fled the country, taken the 5th Amendment, or suffered acute
memory loss.
Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
fuels. Available computer models are unable to explain past
climate patterns, so predictions of the future must be viewed
with skepticism.
If global warming is a genuine threat, draconian measures
supported by the Clinton Administration may be warranted.
But if scientists are wrong, the proposed treaty will inflict
needless pain and suffering on the U.S., and the treaties
entered into will be difficult to reverse.
If the Clinton Administration has been influenced by
foreign contributors, we must give utmost scrutiny to any
treaties or trade agreements negotiated by the Clinton
Administration.
While neither can be proven, the notion that the Clinton
Administration has been influenced by foreign contributions
seems much more credible than the predictions of a global
warming disaster, and Congress should act accordingly.
===================================================================
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. Weyrich Computer Consulting
mailto:orv...@weyrich.com http://www.weyrich.com
LET US HELP DEVELOP YOUR WEB PAGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Nudds
(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
: fuels.
Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
accusations, no significant references are produced.
The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
cowards who fear societal change.
--
<---->
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.
Sorry, you are mistaken ... I am old enough to REMEMBER the
scientific discussions of the day.
Check out, for example Science, July 9, 1971, pg 138: Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate.
Yes, I know that Science is a popular newsletter, but it is a
repected one. I don't have peer reviewed journals handy to back
up EITHER global warming OR global cooling. Yes, I know that
2500 scientists recently produced a report, but I understand that
the very short ABSTRACT which Al Gore llikes to cite was produced
by one of his appointees, and doesn't well represent the full works.
Conveniently, this government-sponsored report does not appear to be
available in computer-readable form in it's entierity, making it hard
to prove allegations.
If there WERE strong scientific evidence supporting global warming,
YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR that Al Gore et al would MAKE SURE
that the full report were readily available. When that happens, I
will consider the facts. Until then, I will dismiss the hype.
dgri...@nucleus.com
On 6 Dec 1997 19:43:04 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
>: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
>: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
>: fuels.
>
> Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
>claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
>provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
>accusations, no significant references are produced.
>
> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
>ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
>cowards who fear societal change.
>
Mr. Nudds you are the one who is in denial about scientists not
warning about an imminent ice age. Proof of this comes from a book
called The Cooling by Lowell Ponte. This book was published in 1976 by
Prentice Hall. The following excerpt is from that book.
"Appendix One (Page 247)
The Shape of Cooling
In January 1975 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
entitled Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action. There
is, it said "a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
could befall the earth within the next hundred years."
From such a staid group the statement was surprisingly strong, but the
panel of experts authorizing it had good reasons for what they said:
(1) global climate was already cooling; Northern Hemispheric
temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940's; (2) the
period of warm climate the Earth enjoyed between 1880 and 1940 was
highly abnormal; when considered in the context of world history, we
have seen the warmest century of the last millennium, which was part
of the warmest 10,000-year period of the last million years, and this
odd warmth cannot be expected to last; (3) climate changes in the past
have followed well-defined cycles, and if these cycles continue we can
anticipate colder climate to return soon.
Two of the cycles run at intervals of 20,000 years and 2,500 years
during interglacials (periods of ice retreat). The shorter cycle
apparently reached its coolest point during the recent "Little Ice
Age" from 1430 until 1850, and is now moving toward increased warmth.
But the longer cycle brings severe cooling every 10,000 years, and it
last did this 10,000 years ago. Thus, said the NAS report, "the
question naturally arises as to whether we are indeed on the brink of
a [10,000-year] period of colder climate."
The NAS provided a series of charts showing cycles in climate and
global ice volume. The regularity of cycles lasting 100,000 years,
20,000 years, and 2,500 years is evident:"
From The Cooling by Lowell Ponte Published 1976 by Prentice Hall
On the back cover of this book were ringing endorsements from Senator
Claiborne Pell, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and
International Environment and Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Deputy Head,
Climate Project, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
So Mr. Nudds how do you explain the fact that scientists *did* warn of
an imminent ice age?
nee...@syix.com
dgri...@nucleus.com wrote:
> On 6 Dec 1997 19:43:04 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
> (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent
> > onset of ice ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental
> > denialists, and cowards who fear societal change.
> Mr. Nudds you are the one who is in denial about scientists not
> warning about an imminent ice age. Proof of this comes from a book
> called The Cooling by Lowell Ponte. This book was published in 1976
by
> Prentice Hall. The following excerpt is from that book.
> "Appendix One (Page 247)
> The Shape of Cooling
> In January 1975 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
> entitled Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action. There
> is, it said "a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
> could befall the earth within the next hundred years."
> So Mr. Nudds how do you explain the fact that scientists *did* warn
of
> an imminent ice age?
More than likely, Nudds was either to young or not yet born to remember
the ice age alarmist. Although I was fairly young, I do recall articles
in all the newspapers regarding the theory. For a while it was the rage.
In fact, these doom-day, fairy tale theorist predicted the earth could
become an icy tundra within 50 years, I believe was how the STORY
went...
LN
H.Selvitella
>(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
>: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
>: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
>: fuels.
>
> Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
>claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
>provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
>accusations, no significant references are produced.
>
> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
>ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
>cowards who fear societal change.
You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
the past?
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:41:08 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
I guess we're turning on the furnace early to get ready for the next
one. See where 1997 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded?
beating out 1995? Notice how most of the years since 1990 have pretty
much been hot year record setters? Notice all them hot years in the
eighties? And that the rise in temperature is primarily in the daily
lows rather than the daily highs, like those warming models predict?
Hard to know why it's hotter than it used to be - but I do note that
it seems the amount of CO2, at least if ice cores correctly measure
it, is at about a 160,000 year high. I hear cutting trees and burning
fuel makes CO2.
Man made global warming isn't a proven scientific fact, but there are
some suggestive coincidences out there, which suggest we should cool
it on the gasses for a while.At least, that's how most Nobel science
prize winners see it.
-------------
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
H.Selvitella
Thanks for the, uh, background. The argument, previously, centered on
the question of "natural" vs. home-made changes in global temperature.
Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
back too far the other way.
It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
Before the stampede one reflects on the credibility attaching to the
alarm. But when his neighbors leap out of their seats and begin to
scream in terror he is apt to conclude that the time for reflection is
over. He doesn't KNOW if the theatre is afire or not but he joins the
stampede in a panic.
This is what I know about panic.
In an army training detatchment an hundred or so recruits ( I was one
of them) were instructed to sit down in a semi-circle (out of doors!),
huddling as closely together as we could manage by crossing our legs
underneath us as we sat, arms pinned down by the bodies to either
side.
While explaining some point of procedure a cannister of tear-gas was
unexpectedly detonated in our midst.
The lecturer calmly withdrew his gas-mask from its container which was
hung over his shoulder while he was talking.
For one instant we were absolutely stunned, tracking the events
described visually but not immediately drawing any conclusion about
the meaning of them.
At about the same moment that we got our first sniff, and felt the
initial sting of the gas in our eyes someone yelled the textbook alarm
that we were taught to react to: GAS! GAS! GAS!
In the military context gas--indeed any of the CBR perils--does not
equate with "Did you forget to turn off the burner, honey?" It equates
with pain and suffering, or certain death, or both.
The whole damned detatchment went into panic mode, myself included.
Eyes closed. Respiration slammed shut. And get the hell out any way
you can. Any yielding obstacle to escape will yield, enemy or friend.
There is no reflection upon the nature of the problem. There is no
detailed record of the events attending the panic. Some FOUGHT our way
OUT of the trap, found sufficient space in the melee to slap on our
own gas masks with enough breath remaining to clear them properly.
There weren't many of us who "survived". (In fact, if it had been
chlorine gas--a standard, I myself would not have "made it". That
first whiff might have been enough.)
(This had been an object lesson for us. The orders of the day had
included the extrordinary imperative to include gas masks amongst our
field equipment. Many ignored the order.)
These, of course, were controlled circumstances. There were lumps and
bruises and tears, and for some the involuntary expulsion of excellent
Army chow. There was no real danger other than the inner one that
previously had not been recognized. The danger of panic itself.
Its an ugly thing and nothing with which to toy.
What the law will do to the weasel who shouted fire in a crowded
theatre doesn't come close to a remedy.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:21:28 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 17:29:02 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:41:08 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Man made global warming isn't a proven scientific fact, but there are
>>some suggestive coincidences out there, which suggest we should cool
>>it on the gasses for a while.At least, that's how most Nobel science
>>prize winners see it.
>
>Thanks for the, uh, background. The argument, previously, centered on
>the question of "natural" vs. home-made changes in global temperature.
>
>Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
>reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
>
>There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
>back too far the other way.
>
>It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
>the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
>case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
>exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
CO2 appears to be at a high for 160,000 years - some wobble - headed
straight up. Why take chances?
Govts act in an uncertain world - there ain't no other kind.
But since soon we will know more on warming, and since the risk seems
not so horrible (as compared to ozone depletion, where missing the
call might kill virtually all life) I don't mind a slowish start on
the possible problem - especially if the start solves other problems
as well.
If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
H.Selvitella
>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
Buy an air-conditioner.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>
>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>Buy an air-conditioner.
I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
much. I only want cost-efective actions.
By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
climate.
H.Selvitella
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:27:47 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>>
>>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>>Buy an air-conditioner.
>
>I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
>much. I only want cost-efective actions.
>
>By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
>more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
>since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
>climate.
If you're trolling for support here's mine: NO MONEY FOR THE
GLOBAL-WARMING SCARE. NO EXTORTION OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER "JUST IN
CASE". The gravy train is coming to a well deserved resting place.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 05:45:38 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:27:47 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>>>
>>>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>>>Buy an air-conditioner.
>>
>>I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
>>much. I only want cost-efective actions.
>>
>>By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
>>more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
>>since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
>>climate.
>
>If you're trolling for support here's mine: NO MONEY FOR THE
>GLOBAL-WARMING SCARE. NO EXTORTION OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER "JUST IN
>CASE". The gravy train is coming to a well deserved resting place.
Don't you mean to say "rusting" place? All the moisture and all.
Did I mention the recent satellite measures - confirming the sea level
has risen 3 mm in each of the past two years, more than expected?
You talk about money - which is exactly the right issue - it might be
expensive to have a bunch of buildings under water.
H.Selvitella
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:08:24 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 05:45:38 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:27:47 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>>>>
>>>>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>>>>Buy an air-conditioner.
>>>
>>>I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
>>>much. I only want cost-efective actions.
>>>
>>>By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
>>>more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
>>>since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
>>>climate.
>>
>>If you're trolling for support here's mine: NO MONEY FOR THE
>>GLOBAL-WARMING SCARE. NO EXTORTION OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER "JUST IN
>>CASE". The gravy train is coming to a well deserved resting place.
>
>Don't you mean to say "rusting" place? All the moisture and all.
Nice. A more appropriate trysting place for pols and bureaucrats
withal.
>Did I mention the recent satellite measures - confirming the sea level
>has risen 3 mm in each of the past two years, more than expected?
>
>You talk about money - which is exactly the right issue - it might be
>expensive to have a bunch of buildings under water.
We seem to submerge entire villages--Aswan and the Yangtze project
most notably--absorbing the consequences in due course. We have done
so here with hardly a murmur.
Rig up a rain-barrel Leroy--hard for the hydraulic sewerage nuts to
charge you for washing your face with rainwater. And some say its good
for the complexion!
Scott Nudds
: >(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: >: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
: >: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
: >: fuels.
: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
: >claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
: >provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
: >accusations, no significant references are produced.
: >
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: >ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: >cowards who fear societal change.
dgri...@nucleus.com wrote:
: Mr. Nudds you are the one who is in denial about scientists not
: warning about an imminent ice age. Proof of this comes from a book
: called The Cooling by Lowell Ponte. This book was published in 1976 by
: Prentice Hall. The following excerpt is from that book.
Libertarian Lowell Ponte? Science correspondent for Readers Digest?
Author of such articles as...
The Menace of Electronic Smog
Who Will Control the Weather
How a Change in The Weather Changes You
Food: America's Secret Weapon
Secret Scents That Affect Behavior
How Color Affects You Moods and Health
Bioagnetism: An Awesome Force in Our Lives
Why Our Weather Is Going Wild
The Menace of Indoor Pollution
Killer Diseases From the Dawn of Time
Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in Cigarettes
He's not a scientist is he?
I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
cowards who fear societal change.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
nee...@syix.com wrote:
: More than likely, Nudds was either to young or not yet born to remember
: the ice age alarmist. Although I was fairly young, I do recall articles
: in all the newspapers regarding the theory.
Oh, there were articles in newspapers, and in magazines. But we
aren't talking about articles in newspapers now are we. We are talking
about a imminent global cooling as is alleged to have been predicted by
the worlds scientists.
Never happened. Global warming denialists who claim that the
scientific community did make such a warning are either willing dupes or
liars.
I will ask again for proof that the worlds scientists predicted
imminent global cooling.
There, you have yet another chance to fail to provide references.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: > ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: > cowards who fear societal change.
(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: Sorry, you are mistaken ... I am old enough to REMEMBER the
: scientific discussions of the day.
: Check out, for example Science, July 9, 1971, pg 138: Atmospheric
: Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on
: Global Climate.
That's it? One reference? And it's only a letter? Come on now.
Others have managed to supply two references in the several years that
denialists have been making false statements about scientists warming
about impending global cooling.
Your failure to provide any significant reference proves once again
that denialist claims are based on self deception, poor memory and a
desire to support the denialist religion rather than reality.
(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: If there WERE strong scientific evidence supporting global warming,
: YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR that Al Gore et al would MAKE SURE
: that the full report were readily available.
There is overwhelming evidence, including the rather spectacular fact
that 10 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 17
years.
And 1997 is apparently going to be the hottest year ever recorded.
Among scientists, the debate over reality has long been over. The
only people left questioning the reality of observed warmer global
temperatures are oil industry shills and mindless denialists.
This is similar to the situation of denial that existed for tobacco.
In the end, only money grubbing liars and fools were denying that
smoking did not cause cancer.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: >ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: >cowards who fear societal change.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
: the past?
I do. Do you see the word "imminent" in the paragraph above?
--
<---->
H.Selvitella
On 11 Dec 1997 22:18:29 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
You mean the one between "the" and "onset"?
Following the reference to entropic scientists overheating the
rhetoric of the Chicken Little vanguard? Yes. I SEE it.
And do you see that WERE it imminent you would be as impotent to
reverse it then as now--IF, in fact, the cause were the wobble
phenomenon to which above a writer--myself--referred?..a coward, no
doubt, fearing SOCIETAL change.
John Daly
Scott Nudds pontificated:
> I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
> ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
> cowards who fear societal change.
John Daly informs:
Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about liars, as this
reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually challenged, or
historically ignorant.
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
You could at least get your facts right before you make rash statements
and abuse other people. This paper was a peer-reviewed paper in Science
by the greenhouse guru himself Stephen Schneider, in which he was
warning of an ice age.
Just to prove this reference is what I say it is, here is the abstract
in full -
**************************** text begins ****************************
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying
the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern.
In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
appears to have increased by 7 percent. 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."
***************************** text ends ************************
Not only did Schneider warn of an ice age, but he even dropped the
bucket on the potential of CO2 to warm the planet, claiming that
even an EIGHT-FOLD increase in CO2 would warm the planet LESS THAN
2 deg.C And now the Green Taliban are going hysterical about a mere
doubling of CO2, which on Schneider's reasoning would warm the
planet only a few tenths of a degree. How times change.
But, Liberal Scott Nudds, you got your assertions plain wrong.
There was an ice age scare in the 70s, led by scientists.
I was there and remember it well. The book `The Cooling' by
Lowell Ponte you sneered at had a testimonial written on the
back cover by, you guessed it, Stephen Schneider.
So the book did get the imprimatur of the scientific establishment
of the time. There was also a book and TV documentary called
"The Weather Machine" by Nigel Calder - same theme.
John Daly
"Still Waiting For Greenhouse"
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly
Rich Puchalsky
John Daly (da...@vision.net.au) wrote:
: Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about liars, as this
: reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually challenged, or
: historically ignorant.
Daly apparently doesn't know that this particular reference has been
explicitly discussed on sci.env many times. In fact, this whole topic
of whether Ice Age predictions occured has a whole Web page just on it.
This Web page is linked to from my page (listed in my .sig). I recommend
that everyone read the FAQ before continuing the argument.
By the way, the short answer is that Daly is wrong.
: 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
Why is this cited as Schneider and Rasool, by the way? I thought the cite
was Rasool and Schneider.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
Scott Nudds
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
: reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
: There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
: back too far the other way.
Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
completely predictable manner.
The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
sun.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
: the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
: case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
: exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
Observation provides the best evidence. Here is a graph...
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.
--
<---->
Steinn Sigurdsson
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
> earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
> completely predictable manner.
> The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
> orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
> idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
> sun.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
Large here means tens of degrees.
Such large "wobbles" would have very major climate consequences.
There is also intriguing evidence for one such even in
the Earth's past - see Kirschvink et al Science 277 541 1997
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On 14 Dec 1997 14:31:35 +0000, Steinn Sigurdsson
<ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
And for an excellent little film on this exact topic I highly
recommend the British film from about 1961 called "The Day the Earth
Caught Fire" also released with a different title in some places. It
gets really hot in London. Then there are stories of odd weather in
various places. Two London reporters, who fall for each other, start
seeing a pattern. Great acting.
char...@hal-pc.org
I find it amusing when it is noted that a big enviro-nut has
"shot himself in the foot" with his own words. A cynical
person like myself would have to wonder who has paid Mr.
Schneider off, and how much money it took to change his
opinion so radically. It appears that many so-called leaders
of the enviro movement are being manipulated for political
reasons.
In article <349297...@vision.net.au>,
John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> wrote:
>Scott Nudds pontificated:
>
>> I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
>
>> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent
onset of ice
>> ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental
denialists, and
>> cowards who fear societal change.
>
>John Daly informs:
>
>Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about
liars, as this
>reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually
challenged, or
>historically ignorant.
>
>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
>
H.Selvitella
On 14 Dec 1997 06:03:45 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
>: reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
>
>: There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
>: back too far the other way.
>
> Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
>earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
>completely predictable manner.
Ah. The voice of reason. You have a copy of the master plan? You KNOW
what brought the ice age(s) upon us? You can predict the future?
> The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
>orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
>idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
>sun.
How interesting. Do you have time to elucidate the nonsensical
elements of your analogy?
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
>: the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
>: case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
>: exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
>
> Observation provides the best evidence. Here is a graph...
>
>
> 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.
>
And do you have at hand the surveys that record the fluctuations in
attitude of Earth's axes relative to the sun that we may plot on your
graph?
Looks like the contour indicated by the points you have charted could
reflect a phase of negative wobble if the norm of inclination of
Earth's polar axis to the sun were given as a straight line.
You might also plot, at the appropriate coordinates, the recorded
velocity of Earth's spin and turn, the weight of its mass and the
reading of its core temperature, that is, decade by decade as your
graph reads.
H.Selvitella
>On 14 Dec 1997 14:31:35 +0000, Steinn Sigurdsson
><ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>>
>>
>>> Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
>>> earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
>>> completely predictable manner.
>>
>>> The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
>>> orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
>>> idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
>>> sun.
>>
>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
>>The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
>>to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
>>of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
>>to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
>>but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
>>amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
>>triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
>>Large here means tens of degrees.
>>
>>Such large "wobbles" would have very major climate consequences.
>>
>>There is also intriguing evidence for one such even in
>>the Earth's past - see Kirschvink et al Science 277 541 1997
>>
>>
>And for an excellent little film on this exact topic I highly
>recommend the British film from about 1961 called "The Day the Earth
>Caught Fire" also released with a different title in some places. It
>gets really hot in London. Then there are stories of odd weather in
>various places. Two London reporters, who fall for each other, start
>seeing a pattern. Great acting.
At least you're relentlessly consistent, Leroy. :-)
Do you get a salary for doing this?
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds pontificated:
: > I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: > ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: > cowards who fear societal change.
John Daly wrote:
: Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about liars, as this
: reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually challenged, or
: historically ignorant.
The single reference churned up by Daly is <gasp> the very same
<singular> reference that is churned out every time the challenge is
issued.
One article, particularly one that was not accepted by the scientific
community at large does not constitute any meaningful warning. In fact
it shows the exact opposite. Had there been acceptance there would be a
large number of articles that could be found proposing, and supporting
the proposition.
Just as a single point does not make a trend, a single journal article
does not constitute anything meaningful unless it is supported by
additional research. Research which in this case did not corroborate the
extent of the authors assertions.
So once again, we find global warming denialists incapable of
meaningfully substantiating their ignorant claims.
---
Professor Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La
Jolla, California, is one of the world's respected authorities on
atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas now confirmed -- beyond
reasonable doubt -- to have contributed to the rise in global average
temperatures of one degree Celsius over the past century. - Ehsan Masood
- Nature Magazine Science Update 1997
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: On 11 Dec 1997 22:18:29 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
: >(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: >: You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
: >: the past?
: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > I do. Do you see the word "imminent" in the paragraph above?
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: You mean the one between "the" and "onset"?
Yes that's the word. Now that we know that you can read the word,
perhaps you can show that you can understand its meaning by providing a
series of references that show that the worlds scientists were warning
of imminent global cooling.
You will note that the observation the earth has experienced ice ages
in the past, in now way implies that a new ice age is imminent.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Following the reference to entropic scientists overheating the
: rhetoric of the Chicken Little vanguard? Yes. I SEE it.
Strange talk coming from someone who seems incapable of proving his
allegation that an imminent ice was predicted by the worlds scientists
back in the 70's.
While your jabber is strange, it is not strange that you can not
support your allegations, as they are the fabrication of sick denialist
minds.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: And do you see that WERE it imminent you would be as impotent to
: reverse it then as now--IF, in fact, the cause were the wobble
: phenomenon to which above a writer--myself--referred?
The only thing wobbling here are the slack jaws of ignorant global
warming denialists.
--
<---->
William Connolley
In article 5A...@vision.net.au, John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> writes:
>Scott Nudds:
>> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
>> ages.
>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
>You could at least get your facts right before you make rash statements
>and abuse other people.
Hmm, people talking about getting facts straight should get the order of
their authors correct.
And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
But apart from these quibbles, the R+S paper is interesting. Notice that it does
*not* predict future climate - it is a sensitivity study about 2 competing
effects. Does it "warn about the imminent onset of ice ages"? Certainly it
raises it as a possibility which "cannot be ruled out within the next century",
but that is perhaps rather a weak warning.
More comment at: http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/sci.env.cooling.html
- 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
Rich Puchalsky
William Connolley (w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article 5A...@vision.net.au, John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> writes:
: >Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols -
: Hmm, people talking about getting facts straight should get the order of
: their authors correct.
: And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
: abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
: perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
Yep. One of the right-wing propaganda outfits decided that, since they
had the famous Schneider quote, they would try to tie every "bad" thing to
him in order to have an individual figure they could demonize. Therefore
this paper is always cited by them with the authors reversed, even though
Rasool was actually first author. It's a classic case of a conflict
between science and propaganda. Daly has undoubtedly had this pointed
out to him in the past, but just like McCarthy, Sigurdsson et al he'll
keep on repeating the propaganda until corrected forceably enough. It's
unlikely that anyone will bother to do that for this minor issue, so he'll
probably keep on with it until the lead propagandists stop pumping him up.
After all, if enough effort is taken to correct him, he can just switch to
some other lie.
H.Selvitella
On 16 Dec 1997 00:40:15 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>: On 11 Dec 1997 22:18:29 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>
>: >(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: >: You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
>: >: the past?
>
>: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>: > I do. Do you see the word "imminent" in the paragraph above?
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: You mean the one between "the" and "onset"?
>
> Yes that's the word. Now that we know that you can read the word,
>perhaps you can show that you can understand its meaning by providing a
>series of references that show that the worlds scientists were warning
>of imminent global cooling.
You are perhaps as deluded by your sense of self-importance as by
other inconclusive arguments.
> You will note that the observation the earth has experienced ice ages
>in the past, in now way implies that a new ice age is imminent.
>
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Following the reference to entropic scientists overheating the
>: rhetoric of the Chicken Little vanguard? Yes. I SEE it.
>
> Strange talk coming from someone who seems incapable of proving his
>allegation that an imminent ice was predicted by the worlds scientists
>back in the 70's.
>
> While your jabber is strange, it is not strange that you can not
>support your allegations, as they are the fabrication of sick denialist
>minds.
The only allegations here stated have been made by you.
You seem very intolerant of questions for a champion of science.
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: And do you see that WERE it imminent you would be as impotent to
>: reverse it then as now--IF, in fact, the cause were the wobble
>: phenomenon to which above a writer--myself--referred?
>
> The only thing wobbling here are the slack jaws of ignorant global
>warming denialists.
Precious little heat emanating from your enlightenment.
We'll probably survive it.
Scott Nudds
char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
: I find it amusing when it is noted that a big enviro-nut has
: "shot himself in the foot" with his own words. A cynical
: person like myself would have to wonder who has paid Mr.
: Schneider off, and how much money it took to change his
: opinion so radically.
Looks like we are witnessing the manufacture of another crackpot
conspiracy theory.
Scott Nudds
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Ah. The voice of reason. You have a copy of the master plan? You KNOW
: what brought the ice age(s) upon us? You can predict the future?
Those theories that I have seen proposed to explain past ice ages
certainly don't contain alleged large scale <random> alterations in the
orientation of the surface of the earth as you have suggested.
You know... Have you ever thought that random events are somewhat
difficult to predict. Kinda makes it difficult to match theory with the
time line, don'tcha think?
: > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
: >orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
: >idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
: >sun.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: How interesting. Do you have time to elucidate the nonsensical
: elements of your analogy?
Well, yes. Force is needed to needed alter the orientation of the
earth, just as force is needed to cause the earth to fall into the sun.
Excluding impacts, the only forces available are the sun and moon acting
on the equitorial bulge of the earth. The resulting precession &
nutation is well understood and predictable thank you.
: > 1867 ....*
: > 1887 .......*
: > 1897 ..........................*
: > 1907 ...........*
: > 1917 ............*
: > 1927 ...............................*
: > 1937 .......................................*
: > 1947 .......................................*
: > 1957 ......................................*
: > 1967 ................................*
: > 1977 .........................................*
: > 1987 .................................................*
: > 1997 .........................................................*
: > 1997 - Hottest year on record.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: And do you have at hand the surveys that record the fluctuations in
: attitude of Earth's axes relative to the sun that we may plot on your
: graph?
No. I don't have world leprechaun sighting frequency counts for these
years either.
I guess you don't know enough about the world to realize that
astronomers - who have spent considerable effort measuring the sky -
would have noticed a <random> change in the earths orientation.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Looks like the contour indicated by the points you have charted could
: reflect a phase of negative wobble if the norm of inclination of
: Earth's polar axis to the sun were given as a straight line.
Ya, whatever. Go read a book.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Scott Nudds) writes:
: > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
: > orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
: > idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
: > sun.
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
: The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
: to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
: of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
: to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
: but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
: amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
: triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
: Large here means tens of degrees.
Chandler wobble - changes equatorial latitudes by no more than .5
seconds of arc. That is hardly going to change climate.
Perhaps Steinn believes that the earths crust has suddenly shifted in
the last couple hundred years and this is what has caused the observed
warming.
--
<---->
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> out to him in the past, but just like McCarthy, Sigurdsson et al he'll
> keep on repeating the propaganda until corrected forceably enough. It's
Hey Rich,
You want to clarify this point, or shall I just flame
you into crispy little bits for being a general asshole?
Again.
Steinn Sigurdsson
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> (Scott Nudds) writes:
> : > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
> : > orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
> : > idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
> : > sun.
> Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> : A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
> : The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
> : to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
> : of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
> : to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
> : but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
> : amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
> : triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
> : Large here means tens of degrees.
> Chandler wobble - changes equatorial latitudes by no more than .5
> seconds of arc. That is hardly going to change climate.
Nope, but then it is not the only effect and certainly
not the one I was referring to. Try Laskars paper in
Nature (1993) or Widsoms papers from Science, same year.
> Perhaps Steinn believes that the earths crust has suddenly shifted in
> the last couple hundred years and this is what has caused the observed
> warming.
No I don't.
I just happen to know that in addition to the
periodic terms in the Earth's obliquity there are additional
forcing terms that produce a chaotic variation as well.
The amplitude of this is constrained by the presence of the
moon, a very nice result from 4 years ago by Laskar, followed
immediately from the realisation that Mars' obliquity is
large scale chaotic and can change quite suddenly, with
climate effects incurred.
I'd also refer you to the Kirschvink paper for another
mechanism by which you can have large amplitude pole shifts
even for the Earth, and apparently have had in the distant past
(with concomitant climate effects).
John McCarthy
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
This exchange is additional evidence that whatever reasons Steinn
Sigurdsson might have for disliking Nudds, believing that Nudds is
smarter than he is is unlikely to be one of them. Nudds has given no
reason to believe that he is even capable of reading the papers that
Steinn has referred him to.
--
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.
Steinn Sigurdsson
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> This exchange is additional evidence that whatever reasons Steinn
> Sigurdsson might have for disliking Nudds, believing that Nudds is
> smarter than he is is unlikely to be one of them. Nudds has given no
> reason to believe that he is even capable of reading the papers that
> Steinn has referred him to.
Interesting. Again, I make no claim to be smarter than Nudds,
though I have not seen any evidence that Nudds is particularly
smart as people go - certainly not comparable to a number of
my colleagues, or indeed some other posters on sci.env.
And, I reiterate, my initial reaction to people who are smarter
than me (and I know an interesting number) is overwhelmingly
respect and admiration for the person, NOT dislike or hatred
and I am at a total loss as to why Nudds thinks people might
hate those they think are smart(er).
Rich Puchalsky
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
Steinn has decided to illustrate his grasp of propaganda with a
gratuitous ad homenum. Ho hum.
If anyone cares to investigate Sigurdsson's previous posts, they will see
him repeating propaganda bits over and over, even after he's been corrected
on them repeatedly by people who know what they're doing. Case in point:
within the last week or too he tried the old "but what if global warming
corrects an impending ice age?" dodge on Tobis, and was promptly slapped
down for mixing up his time scales. He didn't mix them up; he's been told
about his time scale problem repeatedly. He simply keeps trying to mislead
people about the issue; I have no doubt that a few months someone will be
telling him about time scales once again. He's not ignorant of the problem;
he's not too stupid to understand the point; therefore he's a liar.
H.Selvitella
On 17 Dec 1997 00:50:55 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Ah. The voice of reason. You have a copy of the master plan? You KNOW
>: what brought the ice age(s) upon us? You can predict the future?
>
> Those theories that I have seen proposed to explain past ice ages
>certainly don't contain alleged large scale <random> alterations in the
>orientation of the surface of the earth as you have suggested.
Ah. Those you have seen. Good enough though to scream the sky is
falling?
> You know... Have you ever thought that random events are somewhat
>difficult to predict. Kinda makes it difficult to match theory with the
>time line, don'tcha think?
You know! You've got something there.
>: > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
>: >orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
>: >idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
>: >sun.
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: How interesting. Do you have time to elucidate the nonsensical
>: elements of your analogy?
>
> Well, yes. Force is needed to needed alter the orientation of the
>earth, just as force is needed to cause the earth to fall into the sun.
>Excluding impacts, the only forces available are the sun and moon acting
>on the equitorial bulge of the earth. The resulting precession &
>nutation is well understood and predictable thank you.
Having admitted that your analogy contains nonsensical elements...you
state that force is needed...
that no force has been observed or predicted and that therefore we can
dismiss etc..
What effect has the re-distribution of weight on a spinning object--an
asymmetrical spinning object? Say..evaporation of water here, a deluge
there.
Or the shifting of tectonic plates, say, from east to west or north to
south? Could such phenomena disturb the balance of the spinner?
>: > 1867 ....*
>: > 1887 .......*
>: > 1897 ..........................*
>: > 1907 ...........*
>: > 1917 ............*
>: > 1927 ...............................*
>: > 1937 .......................................*
>: > 1947 .......................................*
>: > 1957 ......................................*
>: > 1967 ................................*
>: > 1977 .........................................*
>: > 1987 .................................................*
>: > 1997 .........................................................*
>: > 1997 - Hottest year on record.
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: And do you have at hand the surveys that record the fluctuations in
>: attitude of Earth's axes relative to the sun that we may plot on your
>: graph?
>
> No. I don't have world leprechaun sighting frequency counts for these
>years either.
> I guess you don't know enough about the world to realize that
>astronomers - who have spent considerable effort measuring the sky -
>would have noticed a <random> change in the earths orientation.
I sense that you are rather low on the scientific food chain and would
probably have to settle for published data.
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Looks like the contour indicated by the points you have charted could
>: reflect a phase of negative wobble if the norm of inclination of
>: Earth's polar axis to the sun were given as a straight line.
>
> Ya, whatever. Go read a book.
I guess one denial is as good as another.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:19:41 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>
>Having admitted that your analogy contains nonsensical elements...you
>state that force is needed...
>
>that no force has been observed or predicted and that therefore we can
>dismiss etc..
>
>What effect has the re-distribution of weight on a spinning object--an
>asymmetrical spinning object? Say..evaporation of water here, a deluge
>there.
>
>Or the shifting of tectonic plates, say, from east to west or north to
>south? Could such phenomena disturb the balance of the spinner?
>
Yeah. And what about that recent confirmation of Einstein's theory
that spinning mass causes perturbations, a dragging, in the
surrounding space-time? It causes the enveloping space-time itself to
wobble, as a top does.
Magnetic fields have sometimes undergone huge flips, and so I figure
is we all run over to Maine at the same time and jump up and down we
might be able to make something flip bass-ackwards. It's worth a try.
or - we might try to get the CO2 level in the air up to historically
unprecedented levels and see what the hell that will do.
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> : > out to him in the past, but just like McCarthy, Sigurdsson et al he'll
> : > keep on repeating the propaganda until corrected forceably enough. It's
> : Hey Rich,
> : You want to clarify this point, or shall I just flame
> : you into crispy little bits for being a general asshole?
> : Again.
> Steinn has decided to illustrate his grasp of propaganda with a
> gratuitous ad homenum. Ho hum.
No, I decided that it had been long enough since you
last proved that you were a malicious incompetent little idiot
that it was prudent to allow myself the indulegence of
actively flaming you when you decided to drop a completely
irrelevant ad hominem into an unrelated thread.
> If anyone cares to investigate Sigurdsson's previous posts, they will see
> him repeating propaganda bits over and over, even after he's been corrected
If anyone cares to investigate my previous posts they might
realise that while I frequently disagree with Puchalsky,
I have never used "propaganda" in any sense of the word.
Puchalsky's use of the phrase is due to his inability to
sustain an intelligent argument when he has his assumptions
questioned or his facts challenged, combined with his facile
belief that "dispute" is synonymous with "refute".
Puchalsky seems to be under the misapprehension that if
he contradicts someone in public this constitutes a correction,
in the apparent belief that everyone automatically takes his
assertions as gospel. Thus when he disagrees with me and
says so, he seems to think this is adequate as a "refutation"
or "correction" and that I do not have the option to continue
to disagree with him.
As with far too many other posters, Puchalsky likes to resort
to speculation as to ulterior motives for people who disagree with
him and refuse to be convinced by his less than stunning debating
ability. Usually he simply dismisses people as either being in
pay of some mysterious external power, or that they are posting
from pure ideological motivation. Since he knows I am not paid
by anyone to disagree with him, and that I am not ideologically
committed to do so either, he is at a loss to understand how
I could possibly disagree with him and is reduced to ad hominem
attacks, usually as asides in unrelated threads, possibly in the
hope I won't see them and call him on the issue.
> on them repeatedly by people who know what they're doing. Case in point:
> within the last week or too he tried the old "but what if global warming
> corrects an impending ice age?" dodge on Tobis, and was promptly slapped
> down for mixing up his time scales. He didn't mix them up; he's been told
Case in point - during a rather civilised discussion on how to weigh
low probability high cost/benefit scenarios, I noted
as a very low probability scenario,
that anthropic warming might have averted a "permanent ice age"
being triggered as a followon from the last "little ice age",
I then noted that over a long time scale this would be a very
large averted cost, ie a low probabbility, high benefit scenario,
and noted that such scenarios are not weighted in the
low prob-high cost sum Tobis was proceeding.
The only place I was "slapped down" for this was in
Puchalsky's fevered imagination. Nor do I recally Puchalsky
actually posting anything in that thread, fortunately, as threads
in which he participates tend to decline rapidly into stupid and
vicious name calling.
> about his time scale problem repeatedly. He simply keeps trying to mislead
> people about the issue; I have no doubt that a few months someone will be
> telling him about time scales once again. He's not ignorant of the problem;
> he's not too stupid to understand the point; therefore he's a liar.
This is typical of the sort of offensively sloppy arguments that
Puchalsky puts about - it is almost as if he actively tries to
alienate people so that they will not agree with him.
I am not ignorant of the issue of time scales, I am glad Puchalsky
thinks I am not too stupid to understand the point, I disagree
with Puchalsky as to whether the issue of time scales obviates
my argument, in spite of the fact that some issue are important
on long time scales, and others on shorter time scales, and some
on both long and short time scales, my weighing of how relevant
they are in different arguments differs from Puchalsky's (who seems
mostly interested in proving that issues he'd rather not thingk
about can be ignored so that he won't have to reconsider his
position). The fact that I _disagree_ with Puchalsky as to how
the length of different time scales affects the argument does not
make me a liar - it just means I disagree with Puchalsky.
I am getting really sick of the sheer stupidity of arguments from
Puchalsky and some others like him. He and they seem incapable of
actual reasoning and feel that any statement that vaguely says
something different from what they disagree with consitutes
correction or refutation. This shows ignorance of logic, science
and any trace of capability to think beyond the parrotting of
spoon fed arguments.
Puchalsky, you are narrow minded, mean and a pathetic debater.
You really should try to grow up to the point where you can
tolerate the concept of honest disagreement and differences
of opinion, try to reduce your paranoia levels a little
and learn that in a democracy the vote can sometimes go against
you, even when you are really convinced that you are right.
Michael Tobis
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: If anyone cares to investigate my previous posts they might
: realise that while I frequently disagree with Puchalsky,
: I have never used "propaganda" in any sense of the word.
While I regret the endless flame war between these two, I
feel compelled to support Sigurdsson on this point. I see
no reason for Puchalsky to have injected Sigurdsson's name
into this particular discussion, and no excuse whatsoever
for the blistering attack.
: > on them repeatedly by people who know what they're doing. Case in point:
: > within the last week or too he tried the old "but what if global warming
: > corrects an impending ice age?" dodge on Tobis, and was promptly slapped
: > down for mixing up his time scales.
Actually, my "slap" was less convincing than I would like. It is my opinion
that Sigurdsson asks precisely the right questions about climate change -
He agrees with me, and against prominent political and scientific opinion(*),
that to the order required for geopolitical process the physical climatology
issues are effectively settled, and that the focus should shift to costs
and benefits. While we disagree on those questions, we do so politely and
with mutual respect. This is precisely where intelligent attention should
be focussed on this question - the "so what" issue. This includes not
only biogeochemistry, glaciology and sea-level questions but also economics,
sociology, and ecological issues.
I think a strong case can be made that the large threat Sigurdsson proposes
was avoided is due much smaller weight than threats of equal magnitude
that are made more likely in unconstrained emissions scenarios. My "time
scale" comment was a crude indicator of how I would frame such an argument.
It certainly didn't end the discussion and I didn't expect it to or even
intend it to.
Sigurdsson's point is, remarkably, in Puchalsky's favor rather than my own
in some sense, since Puchalsky constantly argues against formal weighting
of costs and benefits. By slipping in finite probablilities, however small,
of effectively infinite costs, Sigurdsson is actually making a case in
support of Puchalsky's position! I would much prefer that Puchalsky take
note of the logical connection there and make a sensible argument than
to pointlessly cast aspersions.
If my opinion as a character witness carries any weight with Puchalsky
I assert without hesitation that Sigurdsson has been utterly civilized
and a model of honest consideration in any disagreements I have had with him.
Both of these gentlemen have an unfortunate tendency to carry a grudge, alas.
This does none of us any good.
mt
Michael Tobis
Michael Tobis (to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:
: He agrees with me, and against prominent political and scientific opinion(*),
: that to the order required for geopolitical process the physical climatology
: issues are effectively settled, and that the focus should shift to costs
: and benefits.
I forgot to resolve the asterisk above. One of the things about the climate
change debate (there are quite a few!) that seems to me to be ill-considered
in the public debates is the old saw about the corrupting influence of money
on science. It's long been my position that physical climatology is one
of the less corruptible sciences in this regard because it is so strongly
under the influence of rigorous mathematical constraints - if you want to
build a GCM that supports your pre-existing belief structure, you still
have to satisfy theorems about mass conservation, energy conservation,
potential vorticity conservation, wavelengths of baroclinically unstable
perturbations, etc. etc. This makes it much harder to bend the beast to your
will.
What I have recently realized is that to the extent that money corrupts
this science, it has a peculiar effect in that while each individual project
needs to claim success the field as a whole is motivated to claim failure!
That is, if we acknowledge that to first order our part of the politically
relevant problem is solved, we chase away money that is supposed to be
"doing something" about the problem, without, of course, inconveniencing
the voting public in the slightest. The corruption is to understate
confidence in the work of others as much as it is to overstate confidence
in one's own work.
Despite what you read on the net, the error bars of linear climate
sensitivity have been shrinking.
mt
John Daly
William Connolley wrote:
> >Scott Nudds:
> >> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
> >> ages.
> >John Daly:
> >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
> And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
> abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
> perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
John Daly responds:
Nice try with the bluff. The quote I gave *is* the whole abstract. I
have the paper in front of me. It says - "Abstract. Effects on the
global etc...." The astract which I quoted is even printed in italic,
while the main body of the paper is in normal type. Need I go on?
> But apart from these quibbles, the R+S paper is interesting. Notice that it does
> *not* predict future climate - it is a sensitivity study about 2 competing
> effects. Does it "warn about the imminent onset of ice ages"? Certainly it
> raises it as a possibility which "cannot be ruled out within the next century",
> but that is perhaps rather a weak warning.
How can you make such conclusions given that it is *you* who is quoting
from a secondary source. It must be so or you would have known that my
quote *was* the entire abstract, not part of the main body of the
paper. Since you did'nt know that, your knowledge of this paper must be
secondary only.
Did I not mention the "Weather Machine", the 4-hour documentary screened
in 1976 on a Saturday night on BBC1 in peak viewing time, all about how
we were going to get swamped by glaciers brought on by the
"Snnowblitz". I was there. I remember it.
>William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk
> Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
Really? I thought Sir John Houghton and his little "Gnomes of Norwich"
spoke for everyone in Britain involved in climate.
John Daly
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly
Rich Puchalsky
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <lkn2hyo...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
>that it was prudent to allow myself the indulegence of
>actively flaming you when you decided to drop a completely
>irrelevant ad hominem into an unrelated thread.
Hmm, I wonder when this has happened in the past? Let's try:
Subject: Re: Global Warming on CNN
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 1997/12/05
Message-ID: <lk7m9kc...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
>what was actually deleted). Santer did a good job and should not
>be personally attacked. The attacks on Santer just prove that
>the GCC will use the same tactics as Puchalsky or Nudds when
>they can't deal with what is happening - a common failure of debate.
Steinn seems to think that he has a special privilege to do things
that others should not.
>The only place I was "slapped down" for this was in
>Puchalsky's fevered imagination. Nor do I recally Puchalsky
>actually posting anything in that thread, fortunately, as threads
>in which he participates tend to decline rapidly into stupid and
>vicious name calling.
Wow, pot calling kettle black once again. But there was no need for me
to post on that thread -- let's look at Tobis' reply again:
Subject: Re: Global Warming on CNN
From: to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 1997/12/11
Message-ID: <66pifg$d...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
>I disagree that "very large benefits" accrue in any realistic
>scenario. (Your imminent ice age scenario is clever but as you well
>know muddles the time scales.)
I don't think it can be said much more briefly than that.
> Puchalsky, you are narrow minded, mean and a pathetic debater.
"..tend to decline rapidly into stupid and vicious name calling."
Projection on Steinn's part?
>You really should try to grow up to the point where you can
>tolerate the concept of honest disagreement and differences
>of opinion, try to reduce your paranoia levels a little
>and learn that in a democracy the vote can sometimes go against
>you, even when you are really convinced that you are right.
The vote? I'm really puzzled by this one; we're not voting on sci.env.
In general society, votes have been about as I'd like on most issues,
and on the whole I have little to complain about. Nor do I complain
about votes in this forum. My major issue of complaint, cost-benefit
analysis, has never made it past the U.S. Congress in any of its original
damaging forms, and I'm not familiar with its implementation in other
countries.
Let's progress beyond Steinn's usual badgering and to the most interesting
part of the thread, Tobis' response:
Subject: Re: Campaign Finance and Global Warming Un
From: to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 1997/12/18
Message-ID: <67bls6$6...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
>While I regret the endless flame war between these two, I
>feel compelled to support Sigurdsson on this point. I see
>no reason for Puchalsky to have injected Sigurdsson's name
>into this particular discussion, and no excuse whatsoever
>for the blistering attack.
The reason for this is that Steinn has adopted a tactic of vituperative
complaint at every such instance. That is intended to make his
detractor's comments stick out. I didn't complain at Steinn's
previous attack on me in an unrelated thread (see above) and
as a result didn't spark defenses from others such as the one you made
above.
In fact, the "blistering attacks" were almost perfectly equivalent.
[...]
>I think a strong case can be made that the large threat Sigurdsson proposes
>was avoided is due much smaller weight than threats of equal magnitude
>that are made more likely in unconstrained emissions scenarios. My "time
>scale" comment was a crude indicator of how I would frame such an argument.
>It certainly didn't end the discussion and I didn't expect it to or even
>intend it to.
Clarification accepted. I certainly think that it ended that particular
sub-area of discussion. If Tobis or anyone else can come up with a
reasonable way in which the time scales could work for Sigurdsson's idea
to be more than frivolous, I'll accept Sigurdsson's contention that
he's merely disagreeing with me rather than with known facts.
>Sigurdsson's point is, remarkably, in Puchalsky's favor rather than my own
>in some sense, since Puchalsky constantly argues against formal weighting
>of costs and benefits. By slipping in finite probablilities, however small,
>of effectively infinite costs, Sigurdsson is actually making a case in
>support of Puchalsky's position! I would much prefer that Puchalsky take
>note of the logical connection there and make a sensible argument than
>to pointlessly cast aspersions.
Positions on issues are not the final source of contention. Amusingly, both
Sigurdsson and other people who I've disagreed with here, such as McCarthy,
often take policy positions or make arguments that in a broad view are
very similar to my own. To use McCarthy as an example, he beleives in
a vaguely Enlightenment ideal of human progress; so do I. He believes
that nuclear power would be the best solution to global warming concerns;
I find a good deal of merit in that argument. My disagreement with
Sigurdsson is in the _way_ he carries out his arguments rather than the
conclusions reached.
But I disagree with Tobis' analysis of his discussion with Sigurdsson in
any case. Any weighting of formal costs and benefits for society must
include finite probabilities of effectively infinite costs. For instance,
a full nuclear exchange that is postulated to wipe out humanity must be
considered to have a finite probability; I don't understand any system in
which it would not have an effectively infinite cost. I would advise
Tobis to look back at what Sigurdsson was advocating; he was suggesting
that very low probability events should not be considered at all.
Andrew Russell
"George Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>(as compared to ozone depletion, where missing the
>call might kill virtually all life)
The scientific analyses of the 'threat' from CFCs was that 2 to 5 percent
of the global ozone layer would be reduced over a one hundred year period
before reaching equilibrium and no further depletion would occur. These
were the numbers calculated by the National Academy of Sciences in a series
of studies. The resultant 'effect' on UV-B would be equivilant to moving
60 miles to the south or a few hundred feet higher in altitude.
Try again.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"A major fear has always been a worldwide thinning of the ozone layer. But in
spite of repeated claims of global ozone loss because of CFC emmissions, there
is no sound evidence yet to support this assertion. The basic data appear to
be contaminated; the statistcal analysis is problematic; and the natural
variations
of ozone are so large that the thinning claim cannot be substantiated."
"It is interesting to watch the proponents of of the ozone-CFC theory
squirm when
under scientific attack. They resort to evasion, double-talk, and often
outright
prevarication."
Dr S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
University
of Virgina, and director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project,
Washington Times, December 28, 1994.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Connolley
In article 72...@vision.net.au, John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> writes:
>William Connolley wrote:
>> >John Daly:
>> >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
>> And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
>> abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
>> perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
>John Daly:
>Nice try with the bluff. The quote I gave *is* the whole abstract. I
>have the paper in front of me.
This is interesting. I too have the paper in front of me. It is, of course, by
Rasool & Schneider and not the other way around, which might well make the rest
of the net suspicious of your claim.
I can only conclude that you are lying.
However, this is unlikely to be conclusive, since its my word against yours.
Can I appeal to someone else to take the trouble to look up Science of 1971
(for anyone in Cambridge, its in the Astronomy Library).
Anyone with access to citation indices can check that Rasool is the first author,
not Schneider.
- William
---
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> From: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
> Message-ID: <lkn2hyo...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
> >that it was prudent to allow myself the indulegence of
> >actively flaming you when you decided to drop a completely
> >irrelevant ad hominem into an unrelated thread.
> Hmm, I wonder when this has happened in the past? Let's try:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming on CNN
> From: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
> Date: 1997/12/05
> Message-ID: <lk7m9kc...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
> >what was actually deleted). Santer did a good job and should not
> >be personally attacked. The attacks on Santer just prove that
> >the GCC will use the same tactics as Puchalsky or Nudds when
> >they can't deal with what is happening - a common failure of debate.
> Steinn seems to think that he has a special privilege to do things
> that others should not.
Not at all, you were free to call me on this issue then, and
are still free to do so now. Glad that you did.
In the thread above I was defending Santer against a "right wing"
attack and at the same time noting that the attacks on scientists
come from both sides - there were two specific examples at hand
for sci.env posters which I used with deliberation. Nudds and
Puchalsky both regularly challenge posters assertions based on
who funds them (or rather who they think might fund them).
Puchalsky provided an even better example by taking up the GCI
attack on IPCC WGIII and one of the chapter author, which happened
before GCC attacked Santer, and Puchalsky (IIRC) did without actually
reading what WGIII had said, much less understanding it.
Whoever I was responding to should have found it sobering and
cause for reflection upon his argument to realise that the
content and style of his/GCCs argument closely mirrored
the GCI/McGowen/Puchalsky attacks on other parts of the IPCC.
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> I find a good deal of merit in that argument. My disagreement with
> Sigurdsson is in the _way_ he carries out his arguments rather than the
> conclusions reached.
My impression from what Puchalsky chooses to debate is that this
is not the case. My persistent impression is that Puchalsky
has some set conceptions that he will not accept debate on,
and that the actual questioning of some issues is what bothers
him, not the way the questioning is done.
> But I disagree with Tobis' analysis of his discussion with Sigurdsson in
> any case. Any weighting of formal costs and benefits for society must
> include finite probabilities of effectively infinite costs. For instance,
Yes, that was the point of my low probability example.
It provides a very low but finite probability-effectively infinite cost
scenario that is averted by anthropic CO2 emissions, and highlights
why I think giving a lot of weight to such scenarios is difficult
and done asymmetrically.
> a full nuclear exchange that is postulated to wipe out humanity must be
> considered to have a finite probability; I don't understand any system in
> which it would not have an effectively infinite cost. I would advise
> Tobis to look back at what Sigurdsson was advocating; he was suggesting
> that very low probability events should not be considered at all.
No I wasn't, I was saying that if you want to weigh in the low prob.
tail you must weigh it from both sides.
The "ice age scenario" is not sensitive to time scales because I
specifically postulated one where the disaster is permanent,
there is no recovery on any time scale, civilization and then
humanity would just have gone into a straight and permanent decline.
You can of course formally discount such scenarios, but then you
must also do so for _all_ long term high cost scenarios, which means
you give them much lower weights then their formal assigned
probabilities.
There are of course two other reasons why you must do this - if you
don't the undiscounted sum of future benefits can become very large,
this is what originally drove discounting; and the sum of low
probability disaster scenarios is 1 - it is certain that at some
point humanity on Earth will die out.
Consider Puchalsky's example: there is a finite probability of, say,
a war that would wipe out all humans. If you don't weigh down such
infinite cots scenarios then the rationale is that all conceivable
effort must go into averting this scenario (which then just increases
the probabilities of other disasters). This is why such events are
effectively discounted in making trade off decisions.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On 19 Dec 1997 08:38:11 GMT, Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com> wrote:
>"George Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>(as compared to ozone depletion, where missing the
>>call might kill virtually all life)
>
>The scientific analyses of the 'threat' from CFCs was that 2 to 5 percent
>of the global ozone layer would be reduced over a one hundred year period
>before reaching equilibrium and no further depletion would occur. These
>were the numbers calculated by the National Academy of Sciences in a series
>of studies. The resultant 'effect' on UV-B would be equivilant to moving
>60 miles to the south or a few hundred feet higher in altitude.
>
>Try again.
>
My point was to admit that warming presents a lower level of risk than
some other hazards. If ozone depletion doesn't scare you, you might
try replacing the comparison with the possibility of being run over by
high speed locomotives were they permitted to operate on local
streets, or the possibility that Arianna Huffington would become a TV
commentator on your local TV channel, or whatever strikes you as a big
risk.
On ozone - I didn't know we had a well-established model of how ozone
depletion occurs.
I thought the "hole" above Antarctica appeared in an unexpected place,
far larger and more rapidly than expected there. Even long after we
stopped making many CFCs. I guess even scientists get surprised
sometimes.
If we had continued to produce CFCs at an increasing rate, if high
altitude emissions from new aircraft were to have effects we were not
fully aware of, if the theory you refer to above were wrong, given a
layer only three molecules thick - I wonder what might happen?
Not much? Comforting.
Doesn't seem worth the risk to me, though. Nor apparently to about all
the nations of earth. Nor to the Nobel Prize committee which, in
referring to work on the risks referred to averting a possible
catastrophe or something like that, as I recall.
>Andrew Russell
>arus...@bix.com
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
>
>"A major fear has always been a worldwide thinning of the ozone layer. But in
>spite of repeated claims of global ozone loss because of CFC emmissions, there
>is no sound evidence yet to support this assertion. The basic data appear to
>be contaminated; the statistcal analysis is problematic; and the natural
>variations
>of ozone are so large that the thinning claim cannot be substantiated."
I imagine this person was taken completely by surprise when wide
spread depletion occurred above Antarctica. I imagine that after we
limited CFC he was taken completely by surprise by signs of
improvement.
>"It is interesting to watch the proponents of of the ozone-CFC theory
>squirm when
>under scientific attack. They resort to evasion, double-talk, and often
>outright
>prevarication."
>
>Dr S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
>University
>of Virgina, and director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project,
>Washington Times, December 28, 1994.
I note Dr. Singer and Dr. Rowland differed on this matter - and that
Dr. Rowland was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work.
As I understand it, Dr. Singer is in a distinct minority among
atmospheric scientists. The other scientists in his own field
apparently disagree with him on these matters.
Is it true that others in his field generally consider his views
erroneous?
If so, why did you quote a person with views widely considered
erroneous?
Do you have a corresponding quote from the scientist in his field
recently awarded the Nobel prize for his work? Or a quote fairly
reflecting the views of most scientists in this area?
Steinn Sigurdsson
w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes:
> Can I appeal to someone else to take the trouble to look up Science of 1971
> (for anyone in Cambridge, its in the Astronomy Library).
Be a pleasure but the Astro Lib only has Science back to 1972...
Would have to go to UL or Science Journal Lib in town.
Citation index online only goes back to 1981, so I'll take
your word for it.
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
In article <67d0td$pth$1...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
on 19 Dec 1997 05:32:29 GMT,
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
>Clarification accepted. I certainly think that it ended that particular
>sub-area of discussion. If Tobis or anyone else can come up with a
>reasonable way in which the time scales could work for Sigurdsson's idea
>to be more than frivolous, I'll accept Sigurdsson's contention that
>he's merely disagreeing with me rather than with known facts.
Are you claiming it is known for certain that significant (in
terms of cost to society, as compared to that in global warming
scenarios) cooling would not have occurred naturally over the next
hundred years. I doubt this is a "known fact".
Rich Puchalsky also wrote:
>But I disagree with Tobis' analysis of his discussion with Sigurdsson in
>any case. Any weighting of formal costs and benefits for society must
>include finite probabilities of effectively infinite costs. For instance,
>a full nuclear exchange that is postulated to wipe out humanity must be
>considered to have a finite probability; I don't understand any system in
>which it would not have an effectively infinite cost. I would advise
>Tobis to look back at what Sigurdsson was advocating; he was suggesting
>that very low probability events should not be considered at all.
Well then you don't understand cost/benefit analysis. Of
course different analysts will come up with different costs but I
expect they will all be finite just as they are for individual lives.
James B. Shearer
Rich Puchalsky
William Connolley (w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk) wrote:
: >John Daly:
: >Nice try with the bluff. The quote I gave *is* the whole abstract. I
: >have the paper in front of me.
:This is interesting. I too have the paper in front of me. It is, of course, by
:Rasool & Schneider and not the other way around, which might well make the rest
:of the net suspicious of your claim.
:I can only conclude that you are lying.
:However, this is unlikely to be conclusive, since its my word against yours.
:Can I appeal to someone else to take the trouble to look up Science of 1971
:(for anyone in Cambridge, its in the Astronomy Library).
I don't have the paper available to me. Will anyone bet that Daly is right?
I'll put down real money on Connolley, with high odds. Any takers?
Any side bets on whether Daly was fooled by a secondary source that
he thought was primary or whether he is just brazening it out? I have no
idea how to make odds on that one.
Michael Tobis
Rich Puchalsky (ri...@mnsinc.com) wrote:
: But I disagree with Tobis' analysis of his discussion with Sigurdsson in
: any case. Any weighting of formal costs and benefits for society must
: include finite probabilities of effectively infinite costs.
Yes, but you have to discount them somewhat, because a small finite number
times an infinite cost is still infinite. Which is what Sigurdsson was
trying to use to force me to refine my point. I accept that it is a
necessary refinement but I think the refinement is clear enough that
it wasn't needed to weigh down the original argument, which I repeat
here:
My main point is that arguments between the IPCC consensus and
the polyanna consensus are asymmetric and unfair. If one doesn't have much
faith in the IPCC results, one needs to consider the scenarios which are
much more severe than IPCC's as well as those that are much less.
Tom Moore, for instance, explicitly takes IPCC scenarios as a worst case
even after having somehow presumed that CO2 doubling is a worst case
forcing rather than a target we are likely to already have missed!
: For instance,
: a full nuclear exchange that is postulated to wipe out humanity must be
: considered to have a finite probability; I don't understand any system in
: which it would not have an effectively infinite cost.
It does, of course. But so do many other catastrophes. The point is that
the mathematics says we should expend all of our energies on such
catastrophes and ignore smaller ones. So you have to discount them
to get a useful result. For instance, if a real ice age suffices to
destroy civilization while a real iceless age leaves some remnant of
humanity then no matter how small the finite ice age probability is it wins
a linear cost weighting unless it is discounted a bit. Similarly, we would
abandon everything lesser for an all-out effort to be able to take out
rogue asteroids. Some discounting of the tails of the distribution are
necessary for effective action. I agree with this point, but don't think
it contradicts the main one (above) that I am trying to get across.
: I would advise
: Tobis to look back at what Sigurdsson was advocating; he was suggesting
: that very low probability events should not be considered at all.
I am baffled as to how you reached this conclusion. I think you misread it.
mt
John Daly
> >> >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
> >> And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
> >> abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
> >> perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
> >Nice try with the bluff. The quote I gave *is* the whole abstract. I
> >have the paper in front of me.
>
> This is interesting. I too have the paper in front of me. It is, of course, by
> Rasool & Schneider and not the other way around, which might well make the rest
> of the net suspicious of your claim.
Schneider & Rasool, Rasool & Schneider, what's the difference? They are
both equally responsible for the contents of the paper. Schneider also
wrote a glowing testimonial on the back cover of "The Cooling" by Lowell
Ponte in the 70s.
Since we both seem to have the paper in front of us, from which I quoted
the whole abstract only for you to claim that it was not the abstract
but only the first two paragraphs, either one of us is lying, or Science
has been published in slightly different editions for various
countries. My copy was obtained from the Tasmanian State Library in
Hobart, and the piece I quoted *was* the full abstract, printed in
italic on my copy, clearly specified as the abstract.
> I can only conclude that you are lying.
Be careful with loose words. That's libellous if my copy is indeed what
I say it is.
> However, this is unlikely to be conclusive, since its my word against yours.
No, it is the word of the Science item itself against both of us.
> Can I appeal to someone else to take the trouble to look up Science of 1971
> (for anyone in Cambridge, its in the Astronomy Library).
By all means. If my version is right, the authors were clearly warning
of an ice age.
> Anyone with access to citation indices can check that Rasool is the first author,
> not Schneider.
Looking at my own copy again, Rasool is the first name cited, then
Schneider, not that it matters. I understood your objection originally
was something so petty as the order of names, but the contents and
authenticity of the abstract which I quoted in full.
John Daly
"Still Waiting For Greenhouse"
P.S. I have written a critical item on Schneider on my website, direct
URL below -
Rich Puchalsky
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: > Steinn seems to think that he has a special privilege to do things
: > that others should not.
: Not at all, you were free to call me on this issue then, and
: are still free to do so now. Glad that you did.
That's because Steinn apparently likes pointless argumentation. He
did the same exact thing that he later threatened to flame me into a
crisp for. Hypocrisy and blowhardiness often go together, it seems.
: In the thread above I was defending Santer against a "right wing"
: attack and at the same time noting that the attacks on scientists
: come from both sides - there were two specific examples at hand
: for sci.env posters which I used with deliberation. Nudds and
: Puchalsky both regularly challenge posters assertions based on
: who funds them (or rather who they think might fund them).
Find examples. Feel free to use Dejanews liberally. Note that
I take no responsibility for anything Nudds might say. Also note
that in the major case where I did bring up funding, I did so for
a think tank -- the Hoover Institution -- and proceeded to prove
my claims with documents from the institution itself.
I have no doubt that Sigurdsson will fail to come up with justification
for his childish behavior. I also don't doubt that rather than
admitting this, he will instantly come up with a new attack.
: Puchalsky provided an even better example by taking up the GCI
: attack on IPCC WGIII and one of the chapter author, which happened
: before GCC attacked Santer, and Puchalsky (IIRC) did without actually
: reading what WGIII had said, much less understanding it.
What a mind reader Sigurdsson is. Does he dispute the facts discussed;
i.e. that Third World lives were given less value than First World ones?
Or does he think that moral concern over differential valuation of
human life is on its face invalid? Given that he compared U.S.
Southern slaveholders to practitioners of passive resistance such as
Martin Luther King Jr., perhaps he does hold this view.
: Whoever I was responding to should have found it sobering and
: cause for reflection upon his argument to realise that the
: content and style of his/GCCs argument closely mirrored
: the GCI/McGowen/Puchalsky attacks on other parts of the IPCC.
Very convincing -- I'm sure that whoever it was instantly recalled that
two year old thread. As a self-justification, Steinn's excuse is pathetic.
Joshua Halpern
: Yes, that was the point of my low probability example.
: It provides a very low but finite probability-effectively infinite cost
: scenario that is averted by anthropic CO2 emissions, and highlights
: why I think giving a lot of weight to such scenarios is difficult
: and done asymmetrically.
This is similar to the problem of valuing certain financial
instruments (small probability high risk scenerios).
While the theoretical problem was only recently solved
by two French physicists no less, in practice
traders allowed for such risks by using a fudge factor. While
such analysis is not simple, it is not out of the reach of a
good statistician. It IS difficult to understand or explain
in simple terms, which means that such risks may not be
properly valued in any political discussion
josh halpern
John Daly
> : >have the paper in front of me.
>
> :This is interesting. I too have the paper in front of me. It is, of course, by
> :Rasool & Schneider and not the other way around, which might well make the rest
> :of the net suspicious of your claim.
>
>
> :However, this is unlikely to be conclusive, since its my word against yours.
> :Can I appeal to someone else to take the trouble to look up Science of 1971
> :(for anyone in Cambridge, its in the Astronomy Library).
>
> I'll put down real money on Connolley, with high odds. Any takers?
>
> Any side bets on whether Daly was fooled by a secondary source that
> he thought was primary or whether he is just brazening it out? I have no
> idea how to make odds on that one.
John Daly responds:
Just to up the stakes a little for all you gamblers out there. Am I
bluffing or am I not?
I will now quote from the `References and Notes' section of the paper,
item 9.
****************************************************
"9. In the model the lapse rate is held fixed at 6.5 deg. K per
kilometer, which is the average critical value for convective
stability. Any increase in the surface temperature alone would result
in a superadiabatic lapse rate, which is convectively unstable."
******************************************************
Anyone else want to bet on Connolley the modeller? Perhaps he could
quote to us all Reference no.26 which he should be able to do if he has
the paper.
John Daly
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/schneidr.htm for the lowdown on
Schneider.
Rich Puchalsky
Joshua Halpern (j...@IDT.NET) wrote:
: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: : Yes, that was the point of my low probability example.
: : It provides a very low but finite probability-effectively infinite cost
: : scenario that is averted by anthropic CO2 emissions, and highlights
: : why I think giving a lot of weight to such scenarios is difficult
: : and done asymmetrically.
: This is similar to the problem of valuing certain financial
: instruments (small probability high risk scenerios).
: While the theoretical problem was only recently solved
: by two French physicists no less, in practice
: traders allowed for such risks by using a fudge factor. While
: such analysis is not simple, it is not out of the reach of a
: good statistician. It IS difficult to understand or explain
: in simple terms, which means that such risks may not be
: properly valued in any political discussion
I don't doubt that there may be some form of higher mathematics
which can address this problem adequately in a formal sense, although
my own grasp of math is insufficient to understand it. What I am
sure of, however, is that the mathematical model called "cost-benefit
analysis" by public policy types is very poor at these types of problems.
Everyone seems to agree that there are certain events that have low or
very low probabilities of occurance but effectively infinite cost. It
is clear pragmatically, at least to me, that the ideal allocation of
societal resources to preventing these occurances will be neither all
of society's resources nor none of them, but rather some number in
between. Since all that current CBA does is multiply costs by probabilities
of occurance, do the same thing with benefits, and then compare them, it is
clearly inadequate. That doesn't stop it from being the political
favorite of certain groups who have an interest in these questions not
being addressed. In thee real world, if the only choice the policy
instrument presents is either all of societies' resources devoted to
the problem or none, none will win every time.
Rich Puchalsky
John Daly (da...@vision.net.au) wrote:
: Schneider & Rasool, Rasool & Schneider, what's the difference? They are
: both equally responsible for the contents of the paper.
Wrong! The order of authorship is very important to researchers, who
regularly distinguish between first authorship and otherwise. In addition,
a cite is simply not correct if it gets the order of authors reversed.
dgri...@nucleus.com
Picky Picky! Stop being so anal retentive!
The fact is that Saint Schneider has his name on this paper. Who is
first, second or third matters only to Abbot and Costello.
Rich Puchalsky
dgri...@nucleus.com wrote:
"dgrieger" and Daly was not have noticed, but they are posting on
sci.environment. That means that there are certain intellectual standards
that are expected of people. If you can't follow them, I suggest a nice
non-challenging newsgroup like alt.politics.clinton.
I do note, however, that the "Saint Schneider" bit supports my demonization
explanation of why the dittoheads always get the order of authors in this
paper reversed.
Joshua Halpern
Rich Puchalsky <ri...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
: : : Yes, that was the point of my low probability example.
: : : It provides a very low but finite probability-effectively infinite cost
: : : scenario that is averted by anthropic CO2 emissions, and highlights
: : : why I think giving a lot of weight to such scenarios is difficult
: : : and done asymmetrically.
SNIP...
: I don't doubt that there may be some form of higher mathematics
: which can address this problem adequately in a formal sense, although
: my own grasp of math is insufficient to understand it.
The statistics is difficult.
: Everyone seems to agree that there are certain events that have low or
: very low probabilities of occurance but effectively infinite cost. It
The major insight needed to come to grips with how to weight infinite
but improbable risks is to realize that the "average", being then
also infinite will no longer be a meaningful statistic for the
distribution of risks. For such situations medians and modes, etc. are
better measures.
josh halpern
Rich Puchalsky
From: to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Message-ID: <67f9bk$m...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
>Rich Puchalsky (ri...@mnsinc.com) wrote:
>: But I disagree with Tobis' analysis of his discussion with Sigurdsson in
>: any case. Any weighting of formal costs and benefits for society must
>: include finite probabilities of effectively infinite costs.
>
>Yes, but you have to discount them somewhat, because a small finite number
>times an infinite cost is still infinite. Which is what Sigurdsson was
>trying to use to force me to refine my point. I accept that it is a
>necessary refinement but I think the refinement is clear enough that
>it wasn't needed to weigh down the original argument, which I repeat
>here:
[original argument deleted, I mostly agree with it]
I'm surprised that you hadn't thought about the problem of infinite costs
in CBA already. Now, think about what is meant by "discounting
them somewhat". Precisely what, mathematically, is going on in this
operation?
>
>It does, of course. But so do many other catastrophes. The point is that
>the mathematics says we should expend all of our energies on such
>catastrophes and ignore smaller ones.
That's because the mathematics is obviously wrong. It is simple
mathematics that's not really suited to this type of problem.
>So you have to discount them
>to get a useful result. For instance, if a real ice age suffices to
>destroy civilization while a real iceless age leaves some remnant of
>humanity then no matter how small the finite ice age probability is it wins
>a linear cost weighting unless it is discounted a bit.
I still would like to hear what "discounting a bit" means. Any fraction
of infinity is stil infinity, of course, so just what do you mean?
>Similarly, we would
>abandon everything lesser for an all-out effort to be able to take out
>rogue asteroids. Some discounting of the tails of the distribution are
>necessary for effective action. I agree with this point, but don't think
>it contradicts the main one (above) that I am trying to get across.
What I'm trying to get you to see is that if you accept this mathematical
model, the only way you can "discount the tails of the distribution" is
by ignoring them.
>: I would advise
>: Tobis to look back at what Sigurdsson was advocating; he was suggesting
>: that very low probability events should not be considered at all.
>
>I am baffled as to how you reached this conclusion. I think you misread it.
>
Well, I don't think you've been reading the thread very carefully,
especially since you fell for Sigurdsson's flamebait hook, line, and sinker.
(I refer to his exaggerated response to my mentioning him as a bad example
--after doing the same to me earlier). What exactly do you think the
consequences of doing CBA in real life while "discounting the tails of
the distribution" are? Let's say you were doing one; how exactly would
you assign a weighted value to these risks? Let's pretend for the example
that you were doing this in a governmental context with real consequences
of your analysis, including ones to you personally if your analysis was
challenged successfully.
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : > Steinn seems to think that he has a special privilege to do things
> : > that others should not.
> : Not at all, you were free to call me on this issue then, and
> : are still free to do so now. Glad that you did.
> That's because Steinn apparently likes pointless argumentation. He
> did the same exact thing that he later threatened to flame me into a
> crisp for. Hypocrisy and blowhardiness often go together, it seems.
Nope, I like pointed arguments, this is why arguing with
Tobis for example is a joy and arguing with you is nauseating.
> : In the thread above I was defending Santer against a "right wing"
> : attack and at the same time noting that the attacks on scientists
> : come from both sides - there were two specific examples at hand
> : for sci.env posters which I used with deliberation. Nudds and
> : Puchalsky both regularly challenge posters assertions based on
> : who funds them (or rather who they think might fund them).
> Find examples. Feel free to use Dejanews liberally. Note that
> I take no responsibility for anything Nudds might say. Also note
Of course not, you just rationalise his most offensive comments
because you find him simultaneously sincere and deliberately
provocative.
> that in the major case where I did bring up funding, I did so for
> a think tank -- the Hoover Institution -- and proceeded to prove
> my claims with documents from the institution itself.
Prove what? That Hoover receives money from external sources?
That is hardly a proof that their work is tainted, much less
that John McCarthy is acting on behalf of some company that
gave a small amount to Hoover once?
> I have no doubt that Sigurdsson will fail to come up with justification
> for his childish behavior. I also don't doubt that rather than
> admitting this, he will instantly come up with a new attack.
I think I am eminently justified in challenging your claim that
I use "propaganda" as the assertion you made is false.
> : Puchalsky provided an even better example by taking up the GCI
> : attack on IPCC WGIII and one of the chapter author, which happened
> : before GCC attacked Santer, and Puchalsky (IIRC) did without actually
> : reading what WGIII had said, much less understanding it.
> What a mind reader Sigurdsson is. Does he dispute the facts discussed;
> i.e. that Third World lives were given less value than First World ones?
> Or does he think that moral concern over differential valuation of
> human life is on its face invalid? Given that he compared U.S.
> Southern slaveholders to practitioners of passive resistance such as
> Martin Luther King Jr., perhaps he does hold this view.
Moral concerns over valuation of human life are valid, attacking
the person of Pearce based on a third party account of someone else's
criticism of his work is not.
Your attack on WGIII was a precise parallel to the proxy attacks
on Santer and WGI, based on a distorted third hand account of
what was done and the science involved. You didn't understand then
what WGIII did, and you still don't. No more than the random
ditto-heads understand radiative forcing.
GCI should not have done what they did, and GCC should not have
done what they did and I deplore both.
> : Whoever I was responding to should have found it sobering and
> : cause for reflection upon his argument to realise that the
> : content and style of his/GCCs argument closely mirrored
> : the GCI/McGowen/Puchalsky attacks on other parts of the IPCC.
> Very convincing -- I'm sure that whoever it was instantly recalled that
> two year old thread. As a self-justification, Steinn's excuse is pathetic.
I'm sure some people did recall that thread.
It is quite enlightening to see who attacks the IPCC groups,
how and in what manner. There is an amusing if quite disturbing
symmetry in the way some of the more rabid libertarian/Limbaugh
types attack from one side and how the more ideological
environmentalists attack from the other.
John McCarthy
Third world lives are worth less money than first world lives in the
following precise sense.
If the Government of California spends $100,000 to fit an intersection
in that state with traffic lights, there will be a net saving of
lives. If the Government of Bangladesh spends $100,000 to fit an
intersection in Dacca with traffic lights, there may be a net loss of
life, because lives can be saved much more cheaply in Bangladesh.
--
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.
Joshua Halpern
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
: Third world lives are worth less money than first world lives in the
: following precise sense.
: If the Government of California spends $100,000 to fit an intersection
: in that state with traffic lights, there will be a net saving of
: lives. If the Government of Bangladesh spends $100,000 to fit an
: intersection in Dacca with traffic lights, there may be a net loss of
: life, because lives can be saved much more cheaply in Bangladesh.
It would be cheaper in Bangladesh if only because labor costs were
less. This is close to being a strawman argument.
josh halpern
Rich Puchalsky
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 1997/12/21
Message-ID: <lkafdu6...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
>ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
>Sigurdsson:
>> : for sci.env posters which I used with deliberation. Nudds and
>> : Puchalsky both regularly challenge posters assertions based on
>> : who funds them (or rather who they think might fund them).
>
>> Find examples. Feel free to use Dejanews liberally. Note that
I see that Sigurdsson hasn't bothered to, prefering his unsupported
lies. What a surprise. According to the propagandist, any claim
about what someone wrote can be made without checking as long as
it has "IIRC" in it.
>> I have no doubt that Sigurdsson will fail to come up with justification
>> for his childish behavior. I also don't doubt that rather than
>> admitting this, he will instantly come up with a new attack.
>
>I think I am eminently justified in challenging your claim that
>I use "propaganda" as the assertion you made is false.
And what evidence do you have for this? Only your unsupported opinion.
While in the cases where I claim that you have done something wrong,
I document my claims. Such as the case in which you bungled an attribution
while accusing Nudds of doing so, then tried to obfuscate the issue for
hundreds of pages of rationalization after I produced the message IDs
in question to prove you wrong.
Sigurdsson is so amazingly sloppy, it's a wonder that he's a scientist.
>> What a mind reader Sigurdsson is. Does he dispute the facts discussed;
>> i.e. that Third World lives were given less value than First World ones?
>> Or does he think that moral concern over differential valuation of
>> human life is on its face invalid? Given that he compared U.S.
>> Southern slaveholders to practitioners of passive resistance such as
>> Martin Luther King Jr., perhaps he does hold this view.
>
>Moral concerns over valuation of human life are valid, attacking
>the person of Pearce based on a third party account of someone else's
>criticism of his work is not.
So I'm not allowed to say what of think of the character of someone who
would systematically value one set of people's lives over another's when
called on to do a neutral public policy calculation? It's good to see
that Sigurdsson is consistent in his lack of regard for morality.
>Your attack on WGIII was a precise parallel to the proxy attacks
>on Santer and WGI, based on a distorted third hand account of
>what was done and the science involved. You didn't understand then
You've admitted that the facts I claimed were true are actually true;
that Pierce did use a method of economic valuation that systematically
devalued Third World lives in favor of First World lives. What fact
are you claiming that I got wrong?
Can you actually descend to the level of factual argument rather than
mere mud-slinging, Steinn? Perhaps not. After all, all you promised
to do was "flame me to a crisp", not write anything intelligent or
true. What a shame.
Steinn Sigurdsson
Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> writes:
No, _one of the measures_ is the labour cost saves vs the labour
lost - eg if saving a life requires the entire life long labour
of many other people, then on average, as a societal burden it
is not worth it, and can at best only be done on the margin.
What is interesting is that many different measures of
"worth of a life" arrive at figures that are within an order
of magnitude or so of each other, ie it is a surprisingly robust
measure.
One of the reasons people get upset about this concept is because
they think it is a prescriptive measure, whereas every economist
I know considers it descriptive.
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> From: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
> Date: 1997/12/21
> Message-ID: <lkafdu6...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>
> >ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> >Sigurdsson:
> >> : for sci.env posters which I used with deliberation. Nudds and
> >> : Puchalsky both regularly challenge posters assertions based on
> >> : who funds them (or rather who they think might fund them).
> >> Find examples. Feel free to use Dejanews liberally. Note that
> I see that Sigurdsson hasn't bothered to, prefering his unsupported
> lies. What a surprise. According to the propagandist, any claim
> about what someone wrote can be made without checking as long as
> it has "IIRC" in it.
Excuse me? Are you denying that Nudds challenges people based
on who he thinks funds them? As for yourself, you provided an
example in the same post - your attack on Hoover.
> >> I have no doubt that Sigurdsson will fail to come up with justification
> >> for his childish behavior. I also don't doubt that rather than
> >> admitting this, he will instantly come up with a new attack.
> >I think I am eminently justified in challenging your claim that
> >I use "propaganda" as the assertion you made is false.
> And what evidence do you have for this? Only your unsupported opinion.
Ah, since we are discussing what I actually say, my opinion on
the origin of my words would seem definitive.
I do not post propaganda, I post what I think and usually provide
my reasoning, it serves no ulterior purpose, advances no cause
on behalf of a third party, I am not to paid to say it and I
do not parrott other people's opinions.
I am not a member of any party, society, association or concerted
movement for the propagation of any particular doctrine or practise,
nor do I pass on or repeat the statements of any such associations.
So there.
(Caveat: I am a member of several professional scientific societies
who may have some mission statements consistent with their non-profit
status, I am not acting on behalf of any of them).
> While in the cases where I claim that you have done something wrong,
> I document my claims. Such as the case in which you bungled an attribution
> while accusing Nudds of doing so, then tried to obfuscate the issue for
> hundreds of pages of rationalization after I produced the message IDs
> in question to prove you wrong.
I'm sorry, this relates to "propaganda" how?
Nudds misattributed a quote to McCarthy. I called him to substantiate
the attribution, he didn't reply. I tracked the thread down posted
the message ID that Nudds had extracted the post from and noted
it was not by McCarthy. In the original message I did incorrectly
attribute the statement to some one else in thread, immediately
realised my error (without anyone else prompting me) and posted
an immediate followup providing the correct attribution and
message IDs.
My primary purpose was to demonstrate that the Nudds attribution
was incorrect, ie it was sufficient to show that McCarthy was not
the originator, which I did. I then followed myself up to provide
the correct attribution. I did this even though I had provided
sufficient information for anyone who cared to to see where the
text originated, precisely because I wanted to be accurate about it.
As far as I know Nudds still hasn't acknowledged having falsely
made the attribution.
I am curious, in principle, how I am supposed to demonstrate actively
that I don't post "propaganda"? I could, I suppose repost all my
posts, that would be proof by construction but amazingly poor
netiquette. Perhaps you could positively illustrate your claim
by pointing to an actual example of "propaganda" you think I've
posted, where it is supposed to have originated or been derived from,
and what exactly I am supposed to be propagandising?
> Sigurdsson is so amazingly sloppy, it's a wonder that he's a scientist.
Shocking, who could imagine.
Interestingly enough Puchalsky seems to be an amazingly poor
judge on who is or should be a scientist.
> >> What a mind reader Sigurdsson is. Does he dispute the facts discussed;
> >> i.e. that Third World lives were given less value than First World ones?
> >> Or does he think that moral concern over differential valuation of
> >> human life is on its face invalid? Given that he compared U.S.
> >> Southern slaveholders to practitioners of passive resistance such as
> >> Martin Luther King Jr., perhaps he does hold this view.
> >Moral concerns over valuation of human life are valid, attacking
> >the person of Pearce based on a third party account of someone else's
> >criticism of his work is not.
> So I'm not allowed to say what of think of the character of someone who
> would systematically value one set of people's lives over another's when
> called on to do a neutral public policy calculation? It's good to see
> that Sigurdsson is consistent in his lack of regard for morality.
You are allowed to say what you please, subject to libel laws.
You also reveal your own character in doing so. Your attack
on a WGIII chapter author who was performing his job as a
professional academic shows how little you really regard the
scientific process when it suits you not to.
> >Your attack on WGIII was a precise parallel to the proxy attacks
> >on Santer and WGI, based on a distorted third hand account of
> >what was done and the science involved. You didn't understand then
> You've admitted that the facts I claimed were true are actually true;
> that Pierce did use a method of economic valuation that systematically
> devalued Third World lives in favor of First World lives. What fact
> are you claiming that I got wrong?
That this was unusual, against established practise in the field,
that it was contradicted by other work or indeed that it
was tantamount to the other committing genocide.
The usual knee jerk crap. Denialism I think some people call it.
> Can you actually descend to the level of factual argument rather than
> mere mud-slinging, Steinn? Perhaps not. After all, all you promised
> to do was "flame me to a crisp", not write anything intelligent or
> true. What a shame.
Flaming you to a crisp is not inconsistent with writing things
that are intelligent and true! I just chose to flame you without
(most of) the usual scatological colloquialisms that many people use for
catharsis. Insulting you is so much more satisfying in a minor
way when you can't even perceive that you are being insulted.
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> mere mud-slinging, Steinn? Perhaps not. After all, all you promised
> to do was "flame me to a crisp", not write anything intelligent or
> true. What a shame.
BTW, I don't think I actually _promised_ to flame you to a crisp,
I _asked_ if I should flame you into crispy little bits for
being a general asshole, or if you were going to clarify
the original statement you made.
You haven't exactly clarified your original statement, though
you have posted an awful lot of text since, which I took to
be a general response along the lines of you maybe attempting
at some point to clarify and maybe not be flamed into crispy
little bits for being a general asshole.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to actually mislead people on what
I said by working from your imperfect memory and imply I actually
promised something I didn't do (yet, fully).
John McCarthy
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
I consider it prescriptively. If I were advising the Government of
California, I'd advise building the traffic light. If I were advising
the Government of Bangladesh, I'd probably say don't build it.
Reducing taxes would save more lives.
On the other hand, if I were advising a traffic light maker who wanted
to give away a traffic light to benefit humanity (a reformed Ebenezer
Scrooge), I'd tell him to put his traffic light in Dacca. There is
undoubtedly a place in Dacca where an additional traffic light would
save more lives than anywhere in California, because the most
dangerous intersections in California already have traffic lights.
Steinn Sigurdsson
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> > Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> writes:
> > > John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > : Third world lives are worth less money than first world lives in the
> > > : following precise sense.
...
> > > It would be cheaper in Bangladesh if only because labor costs were
> > > less. This is close to being a strawman argument.
> > One of the reasons people get upset about this concept is because
> > they think it is a prescriptive measure, whereas every economist
> > I know considers it descriptive.
> I consider it prescriptively. If I were advising the Government of
> California, I'd advise building the traffic light. If I were advising
> the Government of Bangladesh, I'd probably say don't build it.
> Reducing taxes would save more lives.
This is where debate confusion sets in. You can take the
description of "economic reality" to provide a prescription
for how to act - subject to normative constraints.
eg. if saving lives is good, and traffic lights are cost effective
by this measure and you believe the measure is accurate
then you advise building the traffic light.
I don't know what tax burdens in Bangladesh are like, so I can't
comment on whether changing those is advised under any prescription.
The economic prescription suggests that if, say, the cost of
the traffic light is more than ~50 years wages for an average person,
then it might be better allocation of resources to
save the lives somewhere else.
If you live in that neighbourhood you may feel social justice
makes it imperative to get the traffic light and the rest
of society should swallow the externalities - this might be
considered selfish by those who are then denied a traffic light
elsewhere...
If you're philanthropic you get the local authority to donate
the money to a third world charity and accept a slightly higher mean
death rate for your neighbourhood (or do you?)
> On the other hand, if I were advising a traffic light maker who wanted
> to give away a traffic light to benefit humanity (a reformed Ebenezer
> Scrooge), I'd tell him to put his traffic light in Dacca. There is
> undoubtedly a place in Dacca where an additional traffic light would
> save more lives than anywhere in California, because the most
> dangerous intersections in California already have traffic lights.
And if you're an international agency and you have an intersection
in California and one in Dacca, where engineering estimates
indicate a traffic light will save equal number of lives,
what do you do?
John McCarthy
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
Steinn is now getting into questions that are hard enough so that I
would have to charge a consulting fee before giving definite advice.
As for philanthropy, the following from George Orwell applies.
On the whole human beings want to be good but not too good
and not quite all the time.
Rich Puchalsky
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote:
: In article <67d0td$pth$1...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
: on 19 Dec 1997 05:32:29 GMT,
: ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
: >Clarification accepted. I certainly think that it ended that particular
: >sub-area of discussion. If Tobis or anyone else can come up with a
: >reasonable way in which the time scales could work for Sigurdsson's idea
: >to be more than frivolous, I'll accept Sigurdsson's contention that
: >he's merely disagreeing with me rather than with known facts.
: Are you claiming it is known for certain that significant (in
: terms of cost to society, as compared to that in global warming
: scenarios) cooling would not have occurred naturally over the next
: hundred years. I doubt this is a "known fact".
Does Shearer define any global cooling as an "ice age"?
: Well then you don't understand cost/benefit analysis. Of
: course different analysts will come up with different costs but I
: expect they will all be finite just as they are for individual lives.
If any analyst comes up with a finite dollar cost for the complete
destruction of the human species than that analyst is incompetent. I
suggest that Sheaer simply does not understand cost/benefit analysis
and the difficulties of its application to certain low probability but
large scale potential outcomes.
Rich Puchalsky
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: No, _one of the measures_ is the labour cost saves vs the labour
: lost - eg if saving a life requires the entire life long labour
: of many other people, then on average, as a societal burden it
: is not worth it, and can at best only be done on the margin.
Of course, when first world dollars are being spent to save third
world lives, as in the global climate change example, than this
analysis loses any validity.
: One of the reasons people get upset about this concept is because
: they think it is a prescriptive measure, whereas every economist
: I know considers it descriptive.
In a policy document used for international planning, descriptive
becomes prescriptive very quickly. Differential valuation of human
life at the beginning will determine the range of acceptable policy
outocomes later -- unless the policy makers simply ignore the
analysis. It that what Steinn is advocating?
Rich Puchalsky
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
: > mere mud-slinging, Steinn? Perhaps not. After all, all you promised
: > to do was "flame me to a crisp", not write anything intelligent or
: > true. What a shame.
: BTW, I don't think I actually _promised_ to flame you to a crisp,
: I _asked_ if I should flame you into crispy little bits for
: being a general asshole, or if you were going to clarify
: the original statement you made.
: You haven't exactly clarified your original statement, though
What a goofball Steinn is. In my first response to his flame remark,
I stated an example of what I considered to be Steinn's propagandistic
writing. Steinn is free to disagree, but he can't claim that I didn't
clarify what I meant.
: I'm sure you wouldn't want to actually mislead people on what
: I said by working from your imperfect memory and imply I actually
: promised something I didn't do (yet, fully).
I claimed that Steinn had been mud-slinging. Shall I quote some of
the puerile insults he has littered this thread with? Unlike Steinn,
I'm not afraid to document my claims.
Meanwhile the Steinn Game continues. Rather than back up any of his
claims about what he thinks I wrote, Steinn goes ahead and makes new
claims, desperately focussing on anything that will drown the thread
in additional argument in order to conceal the fact that he was wrong
on the previous points. Am I misleading people by saying
that Steinn _promised_ to flame me to a crisp while he states that
he only _asked_ if he should flame me to crisp and hasn't done it
"yet, fully"? Once again, Steinn is pathetic.
John McCarthy
Rich Puchalsky includes:
If any analyst comes up with a finite dollar cost for the
complete destruction of the human species than that analyst
is incompetent.
This may seem right, but it's a mistake.
First of all, individuals risk their own lives all the time for
finite gain. If an individual put infinite value on his own
life, he would be paralyzed from even crossing the street. To
put it in monetary terms, most people would take a 1/10 chance of
death for $10 million, and this suggests that a person puts $100
million on his own life, even though that same person would not
agree to be killed immediately for $100 million.
Second, the same considerations apply to risking the species. I
read that some tribes believe that a solar eclipse occurs when a
celestial dog is trying to swallow the sun, but banging on pots
and pans will scare the dog into letting the sun drop from its
mouth. With the advance of civilization throughout the world,
there is only one tribe left with this strange belief, and
younger members of the tribe are making fun of it and calling the
belief a mere superstition. It is very, very improbable that
this tribe is correct in its traditional belief. But can we
afford to let this belief die out? However, small the
probability that the tribe is right, the loss will be infinite if
the dog is allowed to swallow the sun at the next eclipse.
I'm not sure what is the correct way to evaluate very small
chances. Part of the matter is that we all die anyway, and there
will always remain risks of prompt death for an individual and
the prompt destruction of human society. Letting the belief
about dogs eating the sun die out increases the chance of
catastrophe to humanity by a very tiny amount, and may even
reduce the danger by reducing the amount of superstition in the
world.
Now what danger was the original argument about?
John McCarthy
Rich Puchalsky includes:
Meanwhile the Steinn Game continues.
Yes, why don't you stop the game. I doubt that even the people
who agree with you on substantive matters care about the precise
sequence of who said what to and about whom. Steinn should also
stop. I often let even Nudds have the last word.
And don't start another McCarthy game.
Richard Foy
In article <lksorpk...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>,
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Consider Puchalsky's example: there is a finite probability of, say,
>a war that would wipe out all humans. If you don't weigh down such
>infinite cots scenarios then the rationale is that all conceivable
>effort must go into averting this scenario (which then just increases
>the probabilities of other disasters). This is why such events are
>effectively discounted in making trade off decisions.
Perhaps that is the reason. However, I think more likely the reason
is that as a species we tend to greatly overestimate the value
positive low probability events and greatly underestimate the cost of
negative low probabiity events, along with valuing my well being far
more than others well being expecially those we don't know or can't
know.
--
"If you make people think they're thinking,
they'll love you; but if you really make
them think, they'll hate you."-Don Marquis
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
In article <67mece$t11$1...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
on 22 Dec 1997 19:17:34 GMT,
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
>j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote:
>: In article <67d0td$pth$1...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
>: on 19 Dec 1997 05:32:29 GMT,
>: ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
>: >Clarification accepted. I certainly think that it ended that particular
>: >sub-area of discussion. If Tobis or anyone else can come up with a
>: >reasonable way in which the time scales could work for Sigurdsson's idea
>: >to be more than frivolous, I'll accept Sigurdsson's contention that
>: >he's merely disagreeing with me rather than with known facts.
>
>: Are you claiming it is known for certain that significant (in
>: terms of cost to society, as compared to that in global warming
>: scenarios) cooling would not have occurred naturally over the next
>: hundred years. I doubt this is a "known fact".
>
>Does Shearer define any global cooling as an "ice age"?
Puchalsky is quibbling. I excluded trivial cooling. If
significant cooling is possible it should be included in any analysis
of options. If Tobis's point about timescales is just that ice
sheets take more than 100 years to form, it is a pretty feeble one.
You don't need a 1000 meter ice sheet to cause significant damage.
Btw does Puchalsky object to the term "little ice age".
Puchalsky continued (still quoting me).
>: Well then you don't understand cost/benefit analysis. Of
>: course different analysts will come up with different costs but I
>: expect they will all be finite just as they are for individual lives.
>
>If any analyst comes up with a finite dollar cost for the complete
>destruction of the human species than that analyst is incompetent. I
>suggest that Sheaer simply does not understand cost/benefit analysis
>and the difficulties of its application to certain low probability but
>large scale potential outcomes.
I don't see the problem. Since Puchalsky abhors the entire
field of cost/benefit analysis I doubt his ability to judge the
competence of its practitioners.
Perhaps Puchalsky can explain how placing a finite dollar
cost on human extinction leads to logical contradictions or other
self evident problems?
There can be practical problems when low probability,
high cost events dominate expected costs because this will generally
mean that the expected costs are highly speculative. But this is
not the fault of the method of analysis, it just reflects the fact
that the best course of action in such cases is inherently unclear.
James B. Shearer
Scott Nudds
(Rich Puchalsky) writes:
: > Steinn has decided to illustrate his grasp of propaganda with a
: > gratuitous ad homenum. Ho hum.
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: No, I decided that it had been long enough since you
: last proved that you were a malicious incompetent little idiot
: that it was prudent to allow myself the indulegence of
: actively flaming you when you decided to drop a completely
: irrelevant ad hominem into an unrelated thread.
When exposed, Sigurdsson resorts to childish personal attacks.
Very sad.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Andrew Russell wrote:
"A major fear has always been a worldwide thinning of the ozone layer.
But in spite of repeated claims of global ozone loss because of CFC
emmissions, there is no sound evidence yet to support this assertion.
The basic data appear to be contaminated; the statistcal analysis is
problematic; and the natural variations of ozone are so large that the
thinning claim cannot be substantiated."
"It is interesting to watch the proponents of of the ozone-CFC theory
squirm when under scientific attack. They resort to evasion,
double-talk, and often outright prevarication." - Dr S. Fred Singer -
Washington Times, December 28, 1994.
----
Denialist Russell is still denying the existance of Acid Rain and Ozone
depletion.
I don't think he has much of a capacity to learn from his past mistakes.
He will probably die in ignorance... The world will be a better place
for it.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: Nudds and
: Puchalsky both regularly challenge posters assertions based on
: who funds them (or rather who they think might fund them).
I have learned lessons from the tobacoo industry conspiracy. - And
yes, in this instance "conspiracy" is a proven and entirely appropriate
term.
Right wing extremists, have no interest in challenging their political
dogma with such realities.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Chandler wobble - changes equatorial latitudes by no more than .5
: > seconds of arc. That is hardly going to change climate.
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: Nope, but then it is not the only effect and certainly
: not the one I was referring to. Try Laskars paper in
: Nature (1993) or Widsoms papers from Science, same year.
I'm not sure you understand what you are saying Steinn. Laskers paper
simply proves my point. The orientation of the earth's axis is quite
predictable, there is no chaotic "wobble" that is destabilizing or has
destabalized the orientation of the earth in recent memory. And
contrary to implication made by the author who originated this thread,
the observed change in the earths climate is not being caused by some
mystical, magical, twobble in the earths rotational axis.
What Lasker computes is long term stability, at least for the next
couple of billion years. A time period far too long to make any
predictions. Hell no one knows what the orientation of the earths crust
will be 2 billion years from now. For all we know, the earth or moon
could be obliterated through collision, or blasted into bits by alien
invaders from the planet bamboozle.
: > Perhaps Steinn believes that the earths crust has suddenly shifted in
: > the last couple hundred years and this is what has caused the observed
: > warming.
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: No I don't.
: I just happen to know that in addition to the
: periodic terms in the Earth's obliquity there are additional
: forcing terms that produce a chaotic variation as well.
The oscillations computed by Laskars for the current regime are
periodic or quasi-periodic, not chaotic. The "forcing terms" you refer
to are operating in a regime where they enhance the stability of the of
the earths rotation.
Stability Steinn.... Stability...
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
John McCarthy - the king of doom - wrote:
: Nudds has given no reason to believe that he is even capable of
: reading the papers that Steinn has referred him to.
There are those here who will remember McCarthy as a domineering
mouthpiece for conservative huxterism as well as a forceful nuclear
propagandist.
I have, and will continue to expose him for what he is. As a result,
he can no longer scam the public <here>. No doubt he has found other
avenues to further his junk politics.
Denied an unopposed soapbox for his conservative propaganda, he
retreats to silly personal attacks.
Don't hate me because you have lost the game Mr. McCarthy. It was
enevitable. By siding with the forces of evil, you dealt yourself a
losing hand.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: >(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: >: Ah. The voice of reason. You have a copy of the master plan? You KNOW
: >: what brought the ice age(s) upon us? You can predict the future?
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Ah. Those you have seen. Good enough though to scream the sky is
: falling?
I don't remember claiming that he sky was falling. But we have seen
repeated statements by denialists such as yourself concerning a return
to the stone age.
Why does H.Selvitella need to make these false statments? Is he
incapable of thinking rationally and therfore resorts to lies in an
attempt to support his petty personal faiths?
I think so.
I on the other hand realize that science is the best predictor of the
future, and the consensus of scientific opinion - and evidence - is that
the globe is warming.
I'm sorry that this reality does not please the denialist creed.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Well, yes. Force is needed to needed alter the orientation of the
: >earth, just as force is needed to cause the earth to fall into the sun.
: >Excluding impacts, the only forces available are the sun and moon acting
: >on the equitorial bulge of the earth. The resulting precession &
: >nutation is well understood and predictable thank you.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Having admitted that your analogy contains nonsensical elements...you
: state that force is needed...
: that no force has been observed or predicted and that therefore we can
: dismiss etc..
: What effect has the re-distribution of weight on a spinning object--an
: asymmetrical spinning object? Say..evaporation of water here, a deluge
: there.
Evaporation and rain causes no perceptable change in the earths
rotation. There is not enough mass transported by these minor events.
Large scale ocean currents, the accumulation of ice at the poles and
the movement of the continental plates on the other hand, do alter the
earths rotation, but only meaningfully on time scales of millions of
years.
--
<---->
John McCarthy
Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> writes:
>
> John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
> : Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> : > Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> writes:
> : > > John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
> : I consider it prescriptively. If I were advising the Government of
> : California, I'd advise building the traffic light. If I were advising
> : the Government of Bangladesh, I'd probably say don't build it.
> : Reducing taxes would save more lives.
>
> Interesting. Do you have any idea of what the tax situation is
> in Bangladesh, or are you just giving reign to your imagination?
I know that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world.
It has trouble providing clean water and basic medical services. I
suppose these should have priority over traffic lights. I also
suppose that such taxes as the Government manages to collect are quite
a burden on the economy.
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
In article <67h08o$a5c$2...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
on 20 Dec 1997 17:46:00 GMT,
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
>John Daly (da...@vision.net.au) wrote:
>: Schneider & Rasool, Rasool & Schneider, what's the difference? They are
>: both equally responsible for the contents of the paper.
>
>Wrong! The order of authorship is very important to researchers, who
>regularly distinguish between first authorship and otherwise. In addition,
>a cite is simply not correct if it gets the order of authors reversed.
This is not quite right. In many cases, particularly with a
small number of authors, the authors are simply listed in alphabetical
order and the order is not otherwise significant. It is true however
that when the order is not alphabetical it is significant.
Incidentally I think Puchalshy's suspicion that the order was
deliberately reversed at some point is reasonable.
James B. Shearer
John Daly
Rich Puchalsky wrote:
>
> John Daly (da...@vision.net.au) wrote:
> : Schneider & Rasool, Rasool & Schneider, what's the difference? They are
> : both equally responsible for the contents of the paper.
>
> Wrong! The order of authorship is very important to researchers, who
> regularly distinguish between first authorship and otherwise. In addition,
> a cite is simply not correct if it gets the order of authors reversed.
John Daly:
It may be important to the researchers, it is of no importance at all to
me or any other reader. Both authors are equally responsible for the
contents of the paper. Schneider called an ice age in the 70s. He's
calling warming now. Which should we believe?
Had we acted on his 70s warnings, what might we have done. Added *more*
greenhouse gases to avert the ice age? The stupidity of those warnings
is one reason why we should not be stampeded now.
John Daly
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/schneidr.htm for info on this
individual.
Joshua Halpern
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:: > : Third world lives are worth less money than first world lives in the
: > : following precise sense.
: > : If the Government of California spends $100,000 to fit an intersection
: > : in that state with traffic lights, there will be a net saving of
: > : lives. If the Government of Bangladesh spends $100,000 to fit an
: > : intersection in Dacca with traffic lights, there may be a net loss of
: > : life, because lives can be saved much more cheaply in Bangladesh.
: > It would be cheaper in Bangladesh if only because labor costs were
: > less. This is close to being a strawman argument.
: No, _one of the measures_ is the labour cost saves vs the labour
: lost - eg if saving a life requires the entire life long labour
: of many other people, then on average, as a societal burden it
: is not worth it, and can at best only be done on the margin.
: What is interesting is that many different measures of
: "worth of a life" arrive at figures that are within an order
: of magnitude or so of each other, ie it is a surprisingly robust
: measure.
IF you are valuing things in labour units. John McCarthy's
statement was in terms of $ units. I suspect that the more
efficient solution for Bangladesh would be simply to station
someone at the intersection to direct traffic. Not only does
the traffic flow smoothly, but someone has a job.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
: Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
: California, I'd advise building the traffic light. If I were advising
: the Government of Bangladesh, I'd probably say don't build it.
: Reducing taxes would save more lives.
Interesting. Do you have any idea of what the tax situation is
in Bangladesh, or are you just giving reign to your imagination?
josh halpern
Rich Puchalsky
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote:: >: Are you claiming it is known for certain that significant (in
: >: terms of cost to society, as compared to that in global warming
: >: scenarios) cooling would not have occurred naturally over the next
: >: hundred years. I doubt this is a "known fact".
: >
: >Does Shearer define any global cooling as an "ice age"?
: Puchalsky is quibbling. I excluded trivial cooling. If
It is not a quibble at all. If climate is really naturally changeable over
very short timescales, as certain observations imply and certain theorists
hold, then I can easily imagine a significant cooling for perhaps a decade
or so followed by warming back to the original state (just an example).
If this is an "ice age" then sure, anything is possible. Our anthropogenic
forcing might have prevented several "ice ages" by now, or it may yet
cause a few. The point is that "ice age" means more than just significant
cooling; it generally means what people talk about when they refer to
previous ice ages. They have certain characteristics in terms of duration,
extent, periodicity, severity, etc. besides mere significance.
: significant cooling is possible it should be included in any analysis
: of options. If Tobis's point about timescales is just that ice
: sheets take more than 100 years to form, it is a pretty feeble one.
: You don't need a 1000 meter ice sheet to cause significant damage.
: Btw does Puchalsky object to the term "little ice age".
Well, people here keep pointing out that the "little ice age" that we know
most about didn't involve temperatures dropping everywhere and may not
have involved a globally averaged temperature decline. But if the term
"little ice age" is a term of art that refers to that kind of climate
phenomenon then of course I don't object to it. If it is used as a term
of art, I would expect people to not fudge the matter by talking about
ice ages when they mean little ice ages.
: I don't see the problem. Since Puchalsky abhors the entire
: field of cost/benefit analysis I doubt his ability to judge the
: competence of its practitioners.
Uh huh. Let's see, Orwell abhorred Communism so he wasn't an expert on it.
Hmm. Seems like a small logical fallacy there. Not that I claim to be
an expert on CBA, but your reasoning is flawed.
: Perhaps Puchalsky can explain how placing a finite dollar
: cost on human extinction leads to logical contradictions or other
: self evident problems?
Other than that the number is meaningless? That's not inherently a
self evident problem, I suppose, if you consider the number to be only
a weighting factor. But reducing an infinite number to an arbitrary
finite one has the self evident problem of, well, arbitrariness. It
should be possbile to choose the finite number so that the previously
infinite costs either completely dominate the resulting CBA, are completely
ignoreable, or are somewhere in the middle. If the person choosing the
finite weighting factor is choosing it based on wanting it to be
"Somewhere in the middle", then they will have to keep changing it as new
probability data comes in.
As for logical contradictions, it is possible to imagine scenarios where
the possible positive payoff in real dollars approaches the arbitrarily
large negative "dollar" costs associated with being wiped out. One could
imagine, for instance, an industrial process that could triple the human
economy at a cost of a 60 percent chance of wiping out all humans. If
the "infinite cost" within CBA has been conveniently set to the size of the
human economy, then this process would appear to be worth implementing.
Does this appear to be a logical contradiction?
: There can be practical problems when low probability,
: high cost events dominate expected costs because this will generally
: mean that the expected costs are highly speculative. But this is
: not the fault of the method of analysis, it just reflects the fact
: that the best course of action in such cases is inherently unclear.
That seems awfully defeatist. I fully expect that some clever mathematician
can come up with a far better procedure for evaluating these kinds of
problems than the current one.
Scott Nudds
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: What is interesting is that many different measures of
: "worth of a life" arrive at figures that are within an order
: of magnitude or so of each other, ie it is a surprisingly robust
: measure.
Ok Steinn. How much is your life worth to society? How much money does
someone have to pay to society to earn the right to murder you?
You do recognize the right to purchase someone's life don't you? You
do believe that a numeric value can be placed on a life don't you?
William Connolley
In article 4B...@vision.net.au, John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> writes:
>Rich Puchalsky wrote:
>> William Connolley (w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk) wrote:
>> : >John Daly:
>> : >Nice try with the bluff. The quote I gave *is* the whole abstract. I
>> : >have the paper in front of me.
>> :This is interesting. I too have the paper in front of me. It is, of course, by
>> :Rasool & Schneider and not the other way around, which might well make the rest
>> :of the net suspicious of your claim.
>> I don't have the paper available to me. Will anyone bet that Daly is right?
>> I'll put down real money on Connolley, with high odds. Any takers?
Thanks for your confidence ;-)
>John Daly responds:
>Just to up the stakes a little for all you gamblers out there.
>...the `References and Notes' section of the paper, item 9.
>"9. In the model the lapse rate is held fixed at 6.5 deg. K per
>Anyone else want to bet on Connolley the modeller? Perhaps he could
>quote to us all Reference no.26
Well, this is fun. Who knows, maybe Science is published in different versions?
JD has quoted enough to convince me that he has a copy of something very similar
to the paper I have. Its a shame he got the order of authors wrong (its still
wrong on his web page, BTW) but this is not relevant to the science.
To return this discussion to scientific themes,
I will see your ref 26 ("We again thank Dr J. E. Hansen for his many contributions.
The work was done while SHS held a NAS-NRS resident research associateship at the
Institute for Space Studies, GSFC, NASA") and raise you note 12
"Our computed surface
temperature increase ... is less than one-third that of Manabe & Wetherald [due to]
i) absorption coeffs for CO2 used by Manabe ... are higher than ours
ii) In our calculations the troposphere varies at the critical lapse rate,
... in Manabe+W ... the increase in T is confined to the lower troposphere
and the upper troposphere and stratosphere show an actual decreasing in temperature.
iii) [Stuff about Co2 and H20 overlap bands]."
So, R+S knew at the time that their calculated CO2-induces T rises were less than
those predicted by others. Point 2 gives an indication of the level of sophistication
available - nowadays upper-level cooling is a well-known prediction of CO2 rise,
with the same degree of confidence as sfc warming. It is slightly odd that R+S were
not aware of this at the time.
Since R+S warned that cooling, if it came, would come from increases in aerosol,
then by analogy with what the CO2 people are saying today, we can expect that
R+S's remedy would have been lower aerosol emmissions. They give a hint of this
by concluding (this will warm JMC's heart, although for all those convinced that
S is the King of Green, it might dent his credibility) "However, by that time,
nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy
production."
A Happy Christmas to all on sci.environment and best wishes for a Constructive
New Year.
- 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 m...@spool.cs.wisc.edu, to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
[mt's main point removed]
>Rich Puchalsky (ri...@mnsinc.com) wrote:
>: For instance,
>: a full nuclear exchange that is postulated to wipe out humanity must be
>: considered to have a finite probability; I don't understand any system in
>: which it would not have an effectively infinite cost.
>It does, of course.
Why should wiping out all humanity have an infinite cost *within conventional
cost-benefit analysis*? Morally, maybe, but confining the discussion to CBA
removes morality. According to CBA, human society (and indeed the earth as a whole)
has a quite finite (monetary) value.
This approach solves the problem of very-low-probability total-destruction
scenarios, which no longer have to be artifically removed from consideration.
You do, however, still have to assign a probability to their occurrence which
will have to be invented mostly out of thin air.
David Gossman
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>
> Interesting. Again, I make no claim to be smarter than Nudds,
> though I have not seen any evidence that Nudds is particularly
> smart as people go - certainly not comparable to a number of
> my colleagues, or indeed some other posters on sci.env.
>
> And, I reiterate, my initial reaction to people who are smarter
> than me (and I know an interesting number) is overwhelmingly
> respect and admiration for the person, NOT dislike or hatred
> and I am at a total loss as to why Nudds thinks people might
> hate those they think are smart(er).
Could it be that this is the way he (Mr Nudds) thinks? That would
explain why he believes others react this way.
--
--------------------------------------------
|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
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
In article <x4hoh29...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
on 22 Dec 1997 13:59:03 -0800,
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> writes:
>Rich Puchalsky includes:
>
> If any analyst comes up with a finite dollar cost for the
> complete destruction of the human species than that analyst
> is incompetent.
>
>
>First of all, individuals risk their own lives all the time for
>finite gain. If an individual put infinite value on his own
>life, he would be paralyzed from even crossing the street. To
>put it in monetary terms, most people would take a 1/10 chance of
>death for $10 million, and this suggests that a person puts $100
>million on his own life, even though that same person would not
>agree to be killed immediately for $100 million.
I think in this example the suggested value of the
person's life is $90 million since he only receives the benefit
of the $10 million 90% of the time. This also explains why he
would not agree to be killed immediately for $100 million.
James B. Shearer