"Global"-warming myths, Re: Fondly Fahrenheit

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 20, 2006, 8:17:02 PM12/20/06
to
In article <a6r6if889y12$.kou7n1clbs9$.d...@40tude.net>,
Alexey Romanov <alex...@mail.ru> wrote:

> >>Same in Moscow, until a few days ago. We clearly need more global warming.
> >
> > Trouble is, global warming doesn't produce merely *warm* weather.
> > It produces more violent weather. In terms of Russian winters,
> > that will probably mean more and nastier blizzards.
>
> I know that this is the general effect, but so far we have been getting
> warmer winters.

We don't actually "know" this at all -- this is a propaganda prediction
of the Al Gore Hot-Air Machine... <g> So far, the bulk of "global"
warming is showing up at high latitudes, much to the delight of
residents there. Greenland is getting green again!

While paleo-storm-intensity isn't particularly easy to determine, I know
of no evidence that previous warm epochs have been particularly stormy.

And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
-- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Consulting Geologist

Paul F. Dietz

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 9:22:48 AM12/21/06
to
Peter D. Tillman wrote:

> So far, the bulk of "global"
> warming is showing up at high latitudes,

Do realize that models of global warming predict just this pattern.

Paul

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 12:00:12 PM12/21/06
to
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in
news:dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net:

Some of them. Others, equally credible, predict the opposite. And
every other possible scenario, as well. Is global warming still going
to trigger a new ice age?

--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."

Terry Austin

ncw...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 12:39:12 PM12/21/06
to

And of course, it is a pure con-incidence that there have recently been
tornados in Germany - something that was unheard of a few years ago.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 1:33:09 PM12/21/06
to
In article <Xns98A05B96084...@216.168.3.64>,

No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in
> news:dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net:
>
> > Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> >
> >> So far, the bulk of "global"
> >> warming is showing up at high latitudes,
> >
> > Do realize that models of global warming predict just this pattern.
> >
> Some of them. Others, equally credible, predict the opposite.

Well, less credible *now*.... <G>

> And
> every other possible scenario, as well. Is global warming still going
> to trigger a new ice age?

As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway that
civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age has some
professional support these days.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 1:38:30 PM12/21/06
to
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote in
news:Tillman-8ACA0C...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net
:

> In article <Xns98A05B96084...@216.168.3.64>,
> No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in
>> news:dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net:
>>
>> > Peter D. Tillman wrote:
>> >
>> >> So far, the bulk of "global"
>> >> warming is showing up at high latitudes,
>> >
>> > Do realize that models of global warming predict just this
>> > pattern.
>> >
>> Some of them. Others, equally credible, predict the opposite.
>
> Well, less credible *now*.... <G>

Yeah, but that'll change - again - next week, with yet another new
revelation.


>
>> And
>> every other possible scenario, as well. Is global warming still
>> going to trigger a new ice age?
>
> As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway that
> civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age
> has some professional support these days.

It has for at least 30 years.

Wayne Throop

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 2:06:47 PM12/21/06
to
:: As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway that

:: civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age has
:: some professional support these days.

: It has for at least 30 years.

OK. So, assume heroic human CO2 production has saved the world from ice.
Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that we're being a bit overenthuseastic
in our heroism here, and really ought to cut back a tad? Just a tad,
not to zero?


Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 2:26:35 PM12/21/06
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
news:11667...@sheol.org:

>:: As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway
>:: that civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice
>:: Age has some professional support these days.
>
>: It has for at least 30 years.
>
> OK. So, assume heroic human CO2 production has saved the world
> from ice. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that we're being a
> bit overenthuseastic in our heroism here, and really ought to
> cut back a tad? Just a tad, not to zero?

I didn't say I was willing to assume anything at all. I didn't say
I bought any of the BS from anybody. Peter pointed out that the
idea that our pollution is preventing the next ice age was from
Niven, and that it had some professional support these days. I
pointed out that it has had professional support for at least 30
years. I believe my whole point should be clear: that you can find
professional support for nearly any position you choose, even
goofball ones, and that to the average person, they are all equally
credible. It takes a lot of *work* for someone who isn't a pro
working in the fiend to figure out who knows their ass from a hole
in the ground, because they all make the same hysterical noises.

Howard Brazee

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 2:48:12 PM12/21/06
to
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:06:47 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>:: As IB I've pointed out here before, the old Niven throwaway that
>:: civilization's emissions may be *preventing* the next Ice Age has
>:: some professional support these days.
>
>: It has for at least 30 years.
>
>OK. So, assume heroic human CO2 production has saved the world from ice.
>Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that we're being a bit overenthuseastic
>in our heroism here, and really ought to cut back a tad? Just a tad,
>not to zero?

There's no way we can predict how much controllable warming and
cooling we can do to counter natural cycles to keep the status quo
(the status quo is what is wanted).

Also - there is evidence that roads, farms, buildings, and especially
irrigation have more to do with climate changes than the stuff we have
more control over. Some people also think that over-fishing does
this, but that is more controversial at this time.

Climate isn't simple.

Wayne Throop

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 3:14:41 PM12/21/06
to
: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>
: I didn't say I was willing to assume anything at all.

What, not even for purposes of discussion?

: Peter pointed out that the idea that our pollution is preventing the


: next ice age was from Niven, and that it had some professional support
: these days. I pointed out that it has had professional support for at
: least 30 years.

Right. And naict it's usually advanced as a rationale for the plan "we
should not concern ourselves with CO2 emissions at all". Yet... that
doesn't seem a reasonable reaction, if it were true. Indeed, it's
saying that the human effect on climate is *even* *larger*, and even
*more* in need of fretting over, not less.

Not that I assume it is true. Except for purposes of discussion.

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 4:16:14 PM12/21/06
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
news:11667...@sheol.org:

>: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>


>: I didn't say I was willing to assume anything at all.
>
> What, not even for purposes of discussion?

Not until we determine whether or not there's any point to
discussion.


>
>: Peter pointed out that the idea that our pollution is
>: preventing the next ice age was from Niven, and that it had
>: some professional support these days. I pointed out that it
>: has had professional support for at least 30 years.
>
> Right. And naict it's usually advanced as a rationale for the
> plan "we should not concern ourselves with CO2 emissions at
> all". Yet... that doesn't seem a reasonable reaction, if it
> were true. Indeed, it's saying that the human effect on climate
> is *even* *larger*, and even *more* in need of fretting over,
> not less.

And yet, I can find equally credible (to the average person, anyway
- their lab coats are just as white and their clipboards are just
as big) professionals who will disagree with you.


>
> Not that I assume it is true. Except for purposes of
> discussion.
>

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
discussing.

Wayne Throop

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 5:52:45 PM12/21/06
to
:: [anthrogenic climate change staving off an ice age is]
:: usually advanced as a rationale for the plan "we should not concern

:: ourselves with CO2 emissions at all". Yet... that doesn't seem a
:: reasonable reaction, if it were true. Indeed, it's saying that the
:: human effect on climate is *even* *larger*, and even *more* in need
:: of fretting over, not less.

: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>
: And yet, I can find equally credible (to the average person, anyway

: - their lab coats are just as white and their clipboards are just
: as big) professionals who will disagree with you.

Who disagree that if anthrogenic contributions are large, there would
be more of a reason for concern than if they were small? I must admit
that would surprise me. Not much, perhaps, since after all, people
say the strangest things sometimes, but still. Probably hearing why
a large change is less worrisome would be entertaining.

Hm. Maybe who disagree that temperatures are rising at all?
I suppose that'd be less surprising, but isn't that a tad rare nowdays?

One might suppose, disagree that the changes are anthrogenic at all,
but this is the subcase of "heroic human intervention staves off ice age",
so we know it's anthrogenic.

: I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
: discussing.

Um.... well. Written SF of course. You know, "speculative"
instead of "science".

Plus, it's a chance to say "anthrogenic" many times in a paragraph.

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 7:38:18 PM12/21/06
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
news:11667...@sheol.org:

>:: [anthrogenic climate change staving off an ice age is]


>:: usually advanced as a rationale for the plan "we should not
>:: concern ourselves with CO2 emissions at all". Yet... that
>:: doesn't seem a reasonable reaction, if it were true. Indeed,
>:: it's saying that the human effect on climate is *even*
>:: *larger*, and even *more* in need of fretting over, not less.
>
>: No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com>
>: And yet, I can find equally credible (to the average person,
>: anyway - their lab coats are just as white and their clipboards
>: are just as big) professionals who will disagree with you.
>
> Who disagree that if anthrogenic contributions are large, there
> would be more of a reason for concern than if they were small?

Very likely, yes.

> I must admit that would surprise me.

Mind you, such people would be complete loons, but still just as
credible _to the average person_ as any other self-proclaimed
Savior Of Mankind And The World. It's as much a comment on the
average person's ability to judge the credibility of sources as
anything else.

>Not much, perhaps, since
> after all, people say the strangest things sometimes, but still.
> Probably hearing why a large change is less worrisome would be
> entertaining.

Perhaps they think the natural changes are so much larger, the
larger the change (in a mitigating direction, presumably) we cause,
the better. Or perhaps they worship Cthulu.


>
> Hm. Maybe who disagree that temperatures are rising at all?
> I suppose that'd be less surprising, but isn't that a tad rare
> nowdays?

They are fewer in number, but still, no doubt, around.


>
> One might suppose, disagree that the changes are anthrogenic at
> all, but this is the subcase of "heroic human intervention
> staves off ice age", so we know it's anthrogenic.

There are those who believe that natural variations in the sun's
output has far more effect than anything we do, certainly.


>
>: I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
>: discussing.
>
> Um.... well. Written SF of course. You know, "speculative"
> instead of "science".

Yeah, that's the ticket.


>
> Plus, it's a chance to say "anthrogenic" many times in a
> paragraph.
>

I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.

David Goldfarb

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 7:46:01 PM12/21/06
to
In article <11667...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>Plus, it's a chance to say "anthrogenic" many times in a paragraph.

Which is sort of a pity, because unless I'm mistaken the word is
meant to be "anthropogenic".

--
David Goldfarb |From the fortune cookie file:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |"Do not put so much sugar in your coffee, or
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | he will think you extravagant."

Jonathan

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 8:21:25 PM12/21/06
to

"No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98A086FF3F6...@216.168.3.64...

> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
> news:11667...@sheol.org:

> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
> discussing.

Predicting the future, the single most difficult thing to do
that exists.

The chart below gives a nice perspective on the relative
effects of the primary heating/cooling variables.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming5.html
"The above chart shows the current scientific understanding
of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's
energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will
warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects"


Since Hurricane Katrina, a far more diverse set of opinions
have been allowed to speak. So this is a quickly changing
science. But the chart should make it clear the one variable
that appears to upset an otherwise balanced ecosystem
are greenhouse gasses.

And another point difficult to argue are the generic properties
of an ecosystem that has been driven to its 'tipping point'.

Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm

The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
been driven past the edge. And this means wild swings
in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.

So, this discussion is about, imo, where and when
the tipping point resides. So that we can know our
future in advance. So that we can know when and
how our civilization dies.

If no one can point clearly to some chart that says
"these answers are here", then our science has failed
to protect and serve our future.


Jonathan

s

Wayne Throop

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 8:34:54 PM12/21/06
to
:: Plus, it's a chance to say "anthrogenic" many times in a paragraph.

: gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb)
: Which is sort of a pity, because unless I'm mistaken the word is meant
: to be "anthropogenic".

Hm. Good point. A mento. I should avoid aspartame-laced
carbonated beverages until I get rid of these mentos.

Konrad Gaertner

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 9:48:03 PM12/21/06
to
No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
> I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.

Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"? Even *I*
can tell it's all about sex.

--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll

Howard Brazee

unread,
Dec 21, 2006, 9:47:12 PM12/21/06
to
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:21:25 -0500, "Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>Predicting the future, the single most difficult thing to do
>that exists.

It's real easy, people do it all the time.

But assuming you mean "accurately predicting the future", how is that
more difficult than running a marathon, creating peace in the Middle
East, or having a baby?

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 11:47:56 AM12/22/06
to
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:458B4728...@worldnet.att.net:

> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>
>> I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
>
> Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"?
> Even *I* can tell it's all about sex.
>

Yeah, but it still sounds too scientific to be dirty. It's not being
about sex, it's being about dirty, nasty sex. Preferably, with farm
animals involved.

You've led a very sheltered life.

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 11:55:44 AM12/22/06
to
"Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:zyGih.8770$h_1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

>
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns98A086FF3F6...@216.168.3.64...
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
>> news:11667...@sheol.org:
>
>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is that we're
>> discussing.
>
> Predicting the future, the single most difficult thing to do
> that exists.

Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid in
this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna be me on
whether or not I'm right?


>
> The chart below gives a nice perspective on the relative
> effects of the primary heating/cooling variables.
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming5.h

> tml "The above chart shows the current scientific understanding


> of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's
> energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will
> warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects"
>
>
> Since Hurricane Katrina, a far more diverse set of opinions
> have been allowed to speak.

Of course, the following year, no hurricanes hit the US, making the
theory that we will see ever more violent weather rather suspect.

> So this is a quickly changing
> science. But the chart should make it clear the one variable
> that appears to upset an otherwise balanced ecosystem
> are greenhouse gasses.

What should be made clear is that real weather changes take place
on a much, much longer time scale than we have data for, and thus,
we really don't have enough data to do more than speculate wildly.


>
> And another point difficult to argue are the generic properties
> of an ecosystem that has been driven to its 'tipping point'.

If you say so.


>
> Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
> http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
>
> The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
> been driven past the edge.

Is that why the US was hit with zero hurricanes in the last season?

> And this means wild swings
> in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
> to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.

Woe is us. Doom and gloom. The world is coming to an end.

You should kill yourself now, to avoid the Christmas rush.
Seriously. How can you *stand* to live in such a doomed world?


>
> So, this discussion is about, imo, where and when
> the tipping point resides.

Thus slipping in the unspoken - and certainly unproven - assumption
that there _is_ a tripping point. A proposition that is much more
difficult to defend, given the insufficiency of the data, and thus,
less attractive for you to "argue" about.

> So that we can know our
> future in advance. So that we can know when and
> how our civilization dies.

Avoid the Christmas rush. Seriously. Do it now. Long ways, not
cross ways.


>
> If no one can point clearly to some chart that says
> "these answers are here", then our science has failed
> to protect and serve our future.
>

Since that isn't the purpose of science, it is hardly surprising it
isn't very good at it.

Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already true. You
said something stupid.)

Brion K. Lienhart

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 12:29:18 PM12/22/06
to
No 33 Secretary wrote:

> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:458B4728...@worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>
>>>I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
>>
>>Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"?
>>Even *I* can tell it's all about sex.
>>
>
> Yeah, but it still sounds too scientific to be dirty. It's not being
> about sex, it's being about dirty, nasty sex. Preferably, with farm
> animals involved.
>
> You've led a very sheltered life.
>

Well, domesticated ruminants *are* a large source of greenhouse gases.

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 1:01:37 PM12/22/06
to
"Brion K. Lienhart" <bri...@lienhart.name> wrote in
news:p8qdnQ2D3thyiBHY...@comcast.com:

Ok, now *that* sounds *dirty*. In a tubgirl.com sort of way. (NSFW,
and don't say I didn't tell you so.)

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 1:43:52 PM12/22/06
to
In article <11667...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

It's a pretty weak case (for the reasons y'all suggest), but the
reference is William F. Ruddiman's _Plows, plagues, and petroleum : how
humans took control of climate_ (2005). A very cool book, highly
recommended. Some of his conclusions are speculative (even highly
speculative), but the tide is running in his direction, I think.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 1:53:46 PM12/22/06
to
In article <zyGih.8770$h_1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
> http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
>
> The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
> been driven past the edge. And this means wild swings
> in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
> to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.

Well, you northerners maybe. Here in the southwest US, we're looking
forward to the return of the Pleistocene lakes. I have my lakefront
subdivision on the shores of beautiful Lake Lahontan staked out....

Oh, you were thinking of *moving*. In force. Well, we have lots of
dramatic sfnal rehearsals/precedents for that. None of them cheerful,
that I can recall. Anyone?

More seriously, a tipping point is likely, no matter what the cause of
the present warming -- which itself is likely a whole bunch of things,
industrial CO2 one of them. Best to draw up some scenarios. Such as for
the great California droughts in the Mediaeval Warm Period, which make
the historic ones look, well, wet.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 1:59:29 PM12/22/06
to
In article <t2plo2hje6oii64as...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

Few things are, but that's never stopped engineers before... <G>

Seriously, at some point we'll have to take an active, planned role in
climate control -- at least do some serious, modern research into
methods. Los of sfnal precursors for that, too....

It will be interesting to see the reactions of our present risk-adverse
society if it looks like heroic engineering works are needed.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 2:12:42 PM12/22/06
to
In article <dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net>,

Ah, here's a place to hang another myth-slaying:
<http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963>
"The Source of Europe's Mild Climate"
Hint: it ain't the Gulf Stream...

Interesting that this obviously fallacious belief (it dates back to
Admiral Maury in 1855) has lasted so long. Makes a great scare-story for
the Green Warriors, of course -- could that be a factor? <insert irony
mudra here>

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Arthur T.

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 2:24:01 PM12/22/06
to
In Message-ID:<Xns98A15982061...@216.168.3.64>,

No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>news:458B4728...@worldnet.att.net:
>
>> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>>
>>> I doubt even *I* could make "anthrogenic" sound dirty.
>>
>> Doesn't "anthro" mean "people" and "genic" mean "producing"?
>> Even *I* can tell it's all about sex.
>>
>Yeah, but it still sounds too scientific to be dirty. It's not being
>about sex, it's being about dirty, nasty sex. Preferably, with farm
>animals involved.
>
>You've led a very sheltered life.

Interesting timing for this digression. See today's
(2006-12-22) 9 Chickweed Lane comic strip:
http://www.comics.com/comics/chickweed/

--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com
Looking for a z/OS (IBM mainframe) systems programmer position

Jens Kilian

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 3:03:35 PM12/22/06
to
ncw...@hotmail.com writes:
> And of course, it is a pure con-incidence that there have recently been
> tornados in Germany - something that was unheard of a few years ago.

Well, not unheard-of, but they definitely seem to get more common.
http://www.tornadoliste.de/ has statistics.

--
mailto:j...@acm.org As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
http://del.icio.us/jjk

Mike Schilling

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 4:52:11 PM12/22/06
to

"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote in message
news:Tillman-5E7E53...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

> In article <dYGdnaDFZNIlBRfY...@dls.net>,
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter D. Tillman wrote:
>>
>> > So far, the bulk of "global"
>> > warming is showing up at high latitudes,
>>
>> Do realize that models of global warming predict just this pattern.
>>
>
> Ah, here's a place to hang another myth-slaying:
> <http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963>
> "The Source of Europe's Mild Climate"
> Hint: it ain't the Gulf Stream...

obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.


Anne M

unread,
Dec 22, 2006, 9:34:58 PM12/22/06
to

"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fsYih.49485$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

"The Great Nebraska Sea", Allen Danzig, 1963?


Mike Van Pelt

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 3:06:47 AM12/23/06
to
In article <nB0jh.15911$a14....@newsfe24.lga>,

Anne M <amar...@cox.net> wrote:
>> obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
>> lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
>> climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
>> appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.
>
>"The Great Nebraska Sea", Allen Danzig, 1963?

Which inspired a great filk song by Blake Hodgetts,
lyrics at http://www.efn.org/~bch/songs/nebraskasealyr.html

--
Mike Van Pelt | Wikipedia. The roulette wheel of knowledge.
mvp at calweb.com | --Blair P. Houghton
KE6BVH

Monte Davis

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 9:09:11 AM12/23/06
to
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
>lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
>climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
>appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.

"The Great Nebraska Sea," Allan Danzig, Galaxy August 1963

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 1:31:39 PM12/23/06
to
In article
<Tillman-AA217C...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote:

> In article <zyGih.8770$h_1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
> > http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
> >
> > The system strongly tends to become chaotic once its
> > been driven past the edge. And this means wild swings
> > in behavior, from warm to cold. It only takes one swing
> > to give us an ice age, and pretty much ruin our future.
>
> Well, you northerners maybe. Here in the southwest US, we're looking
> forward to the return of the Pleistocene lakes. I have my lakefront
> subdivision on the shores of beautiful Lake Lahontan staked out....
>
> Oh, you were thinking of *moving*. In force. Well, we have lots of
> dramatic sfnal rehearsals/precedents for that. None of them cheerful,
> that I can recall. Anyone?

Ah, here's one: "The Weather Man" (1962) by Theodore L. Thomas
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55492>
--a classsic (if clunky) bit of Analog engineer wish-fulfillment
fantasy: complete weather control by (who else?) an elite corps of manly
weather engineers....

This is the one (assuming memory serves) that winds up with a
heart-tugger, a micro-storm produces snow in July for, well, some
specially-deserving, dying person. Make a Wish for the Weather Man!

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 1:34:16 PM12/23/06
to
In article <873b77i...@earrame.de>, Jens Kilian <j...@acm.org>
wrote:

> ncw...@hotmail.com writes:
> > And of course, it is a pure con-incidence that there have recently been
> > tornados in Germany - something that was unheard of a few years ago.
>
> Well, not unheard-of, but they definitely seem to get more common.
> http://www.tornadoliste.de/ has statistics.

When we lived in Ireland, a tornado-funnel spotting had the locals all
atwitter. To the amusement of these Tornado Alley Okies....

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Keith Morrison

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 1:50:57 PM12/23/06
to
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:17:02 -0700, "Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE>
wrote:

>We don't actually "know" this at all -- this is a propaganda prediction
>of the Al Gore Hot-Air Machine... <g> So far, the bulk of "global"
>warming is showing up at high latitudes, much to the delight of
>residents there. Greenland is getting green again!

Speaking as a resident of said high latitudes, quit blowing smoke. I'm not as panicky of
climate change as my neighbours (being a geologist, I tend to take the long view), but
there's a great deal of concern about warmer weather, ranging from everything over changes
in wildlife and plant distribution (always a concern to people for whom hunting is still a
major part of food production) to concerns over infrastructure due to effects on the
permafrost.

Karl M. Syring

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 2:30:06 PM12/23/06
to

Mike Schilling schrieb:

> obSF: There's an old SF story in the form of an essay about how the huge
> lake occupying what used to be the Great Plains has greatly improved the
> climate in the remaining states. No idea of the author or title, but it
> appeared in one of Judith Merrill's "Best of the Year" collections.

There is a reference to Lake Agassiz in Jack McDevitt's _Ancient
Shores_, but this is not a short story.

Karl M. Syring

Michael Ash

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 2:40:09 PM12/23/06
to
In rec.arts.sf.science Peter D. Tillman <Til...@toast.net_diespammersdie> wrote:
>
> Ah, here's one: "The Weather Man" (1962) by Theodore L. Thomas
> <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55492>
> --a classsic (if clunky) bit of Analog engineer wish-fulfillment
> fantasy: complete weather control by (who else?) an elite corps of manly
> weather engineers....
>
> This is the one (assuming memory serves) that winds up with a
> heart-tugger, a micro-storm produces snow in July for, well, some
> specially-deserving, dying person. Make a Wish for the Weather Man!

This makes me wonder. Suppose weather control of this sort existed. I
don't know how powerful and how precise is realistic, but at the very
least it's now legitimate to be angry at "the weather people" when it's
raining and you don't want it to be, or when the wind is from completely
the wrong direction. How do you decide which weather to have?

It should be fairly obvious that damaging weather should be diverted or
prevented. Thunderstorms should be prevented from building up to the point
where they spawn tornadoes. Rain should be stopped before it becomes a
damaging flood. Hurricanes should be prevented or kept out to sea. But
even this might have unintended long-term consequences.

For the more mundane stuff like whether today is rainy or sunny, how do
you decide? Maybe farmers want the rain, people who have the day off and
are fond of outdoors sports want the sun. You could put it to a vote, but
the small proportion of people who are financially affected by the weather
will be drowned out by the large proportion who just vote for what they
feel like. There could be statutory limits requiring that the amount of
rain be within a certain percent of historical averages.

What about liability? A grieving husband sues "the weather people" after
his wife hit an unseasonable patch of ice on a bridge and goes spinning
into an oncoming semi, does he have a case?

The science of weather modification seems too implausible to me, but the
politics of it sound fascinating.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Howard Brazee

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 6:34:33 PM12/23/06
to
I remember a story about future weather control - the politicians were
powerful - they once voted Australia a drought, and the technicians
found a new technique with a spaceship into the sun to let the
inventor of weather control see snow before he died.

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Dec 23, 2006, 8:28:36 PM12/23/06
to
In article <11669028...@nfs-db1.segnet.com>,

Michael Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>The science of weather modification seems too implausible to me, but the
>politics of it sound fascinating.

Megan Lindholm's Windsinger books have magical weather control, and it's
very political.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com

http://nancylebov.livejournal.com
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".

Robert A. Woodward

unread,
Dec 24, 2006, 2:24:41 AM12/24/06
to
In article <u4fro2lforp4mioe6...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

That's the Theodore Thomas story, "The Weatherman", mentioned
earlier on this thread.

--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>

Mike Schilling

unread,
Dec 24, 2006, 3:14:49 AM12/24/06
to

"Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:robertaw-FAC603...@individual.net...

> In article <u4fro2lforp4mioe6...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> I remember a story about future weather control - the politicians were
>> powerful - they once voted Australia a drought, and the technicians
>> found a new technique with a spaceship into the sun to let the
>> inventor of weather control see snow before he died.
>
> That's the Theodore Thomas story, "The Weatherman", mentioned
> earlier on this thread.

There's another story about weather control [1], in which there's a weather
control board which is supposed to be notified of all weather mods, but
which is usually the last to know. It ends with the complaint that nobody
talks about the weather, but everybody does something about it.

1. I don't recall its name, but it appears in the purportedly-RAH-edited
anthology _Tomorrow, the Stars_.


ke...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 24, 2006, 10:45:25 AM12/24/06
to
> Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid in
> this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna be me on
> whether or not I'm right?
>
> Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already true. You
> said something stupid.)

No. No one wants to be you, troll. But you were right, you said
something stupid, as usual!

Robert A. Woodward

unread,
Dec 25, 2006, 1:27:05 AM12/25/06
to
In article <ZFqjh.2292$sR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The ISFDB has a table of contents for this anthology; "Rainmaker"
by John Reese is the most obvious candidate (besides, I have read
most of the other stories listed and none of the them fit your
description). However, I can't find Mr. Reese or his story in the
Day Index (and the ISFDB doesn't know of a previous publication
either, though they list 1949 as a publication date).

Larry M Headlund

unread,
Dec 26, 2006, 10:53:13 AM12/26/06
to
In article <robertaw-81D71F...@individual.net>,

I just now skimmed through "Rainmaker" in _Tomorrow,the Stars_ and the
story doesn't match the description: no weather control board, no
punned ending.

There is a footnote that notes a 1949 copyright by Curtis Publishing Co..
--
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.

Justin Alexander

unread,
Dec 27, 2006, 1:37:46 AM12/27/06
to

Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> We don't actually "know" this at all -- this is a propaganda prediction
> of the Al Gore Hot-Air Machine... <g> So far, the bulk of "global"
> warming is showing up at high latitudes, much to the delight of
> residents there. Greenland is getting green again!

Huh. I never realized you were a kook before, Peter.

> And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
> Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
> -- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.

You just linked to a website run by a non-scientist with ties to the
mining industry. I'm not sure what relevance you think its supposed to
have, other than as a general example of the kookery the
anti-scientific critics of global warming engage in.

--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 27, 2006, 12:12:50 PM12/27/06
to
ke...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1166975125.646760.258650@
48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:

>> Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid in
>> this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna be me on
>> whether or not I'm right?
>>
>> Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already true. You
>> said something stupid.)
>
> No.

Yes. 'Tard.

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Dec 27, 2006, 2:44:19 PM12/27/06
to
In article <1167201466.1...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:

> > And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
> > Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
> > -- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.
>
> You just linked to a website run by a non-scientist with ties to the
> mining industry. I'm not sure what relevance you think its supposed to
> have,

We shouldn't have patent-office clerks messing with physics, either!

> other than as a general example of the kookery the
> anti-scientific critics of global warming engage in.

Ah. And your qualifications for this sweeping statement are?

Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
--George Bernard Shaw

ke...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 29, 2006, 4:54:05 AM12/29/06
to
No 33 Secretary (Terry Austin) wrote:
> >> Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid in
> >> this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna be *me* on

> >> whether or not I'm right?
> >>
> >> Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already true. You
> >> said something stupid.)
> >
> > No. No one wants to be you, troll. But you were right,
>> you said something stupid, as usual!
>
> Yes. 'Tard.

Glad you agreed with me.

Now this Aced Hardware 'Tard is lying, snipping and forging. Does
Mark, or Jeff Schulein know what is going on at Crown Ace?

>X-Suck-My-Dick: Suck My Dick

A challenge for the Schuleins from Terry the 'Tard?

> --
> "What is the first law?"
> "To Protect."
> "And the second?"
> "Ourselves."
>
>Terry Austin

Another copyright ripoff by Terry the 'Tard?

No 33 Secretary

unread,
Dec 29, 2006, 12:04:52 PM12/29/06
to
Reduced to simply lying about what you're replying to, are you?
Thanks for loudly proclaiming how much man-love you feel for me,
but you still can't suck my dick until you get that chipped tooth
fixed. Go stalk someone else, 'tard-boy.

ke...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1167386045.8...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:

ke...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2006, 4:20:23 PM12/30/06
to
>Reduced to simply lying about what you're replying to, are you?

Terry the 'Tard said: "Wanna be me...?"
Reply: "No. No one wants to be you..."
Terry the 'Tard: "Yes."
Reply: "Glad you agreed with me."
Terry the 'Tard: "Reduced to simply lying...?"

Yes. You are. 'Tard.

>Thanks for loudly proclaiming how much man-love
>you feel for me

Love for you? In your sick dreams, 'Tard. I doubt there is
one creature on earth who would feel any love for you.

>but you still can't suck my dick

No one would touch it with a ten foot pole. (Well, maybe with a ten
foot
pole there could be some volunteer). But try sticking it into a hole
in the ground, you might get lucky, 'Tard.

Of course Pee Wee Autism cannot resist replying and will do so again.

> No 33 Secretary (Terry Austin) wrote:
>> >> Not at all. I predict that someone will say something stupid

>> >> in this thread, and be called names as a result. Wanna *be


>> >> me* on whether or not I'm right?

>> >> Moron. (Which is to say, my prediction above is already
>> >> true. You said something stupid.)

>> > No. No one wants to be you, troll. But you were right,
>>> you said something stupid, as usual!

>> Yes. 'Tard.

> Glad you agreed with me.

> Now this Iced Hardware 'Tard is lying, snipping and forging.

Terry Austin

unread,
Dec 30, 2006, 11:21:33 PM12/30/06
to
I notice you're posting from Slovakia now, instead of NYC. Didn't you
promise to stop stalking me? Or does this indicate you don't intend to
return to a US jurisdiction ever again?

--
Terry Austin

Justin Alexander

unread,
Dec 30, 2006, 11:23:18 PM12/30/06
to
Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> In article <1167201466.1...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > > And I think the preponderance of evidence is tilting against
> > > Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -- see http://www.climateaudit.org/
> > > -- which is fun and educational, regardless of why it's getting warmer.
> >
> > You just linked to a website run by a non-scientist with ties to the
> > mining industry. I'm not sure what relevance you think its supposed to
> > have,
>
> We shouldn't have patent-office clerks messing with physics, either!

Assuming you're trying to invoke Einstein, you're ignoring the fact he
already had a Physics degree and had published papers in reputable
scientific journals before he ever became a patent clerk. Point me to a
single paper published in a reputable scientific journal in the last
ten years supporting your contention. (You can't, of course.)

More importantly, patent-office clerks can do whatever they like. They
might even get proven right and become internationally famous. But the
"preponderance of evidence" didn't turn in favor of relativity until
there was actually, you know, *evidence* in favor of relativity.

Similarly, kook websites refuting decades of evidence and scientific
theory doesn't constitute a "preponderance of evidence tilting" in any
direction whatsoever.

You want to convince me that you're right? Show me the reputable
evidence.

That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
existence. You have to actually have the evidence.

ke...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 31, 2006, 2:33:39 AM12/31/06
to
Just as I said. Poor Terry Notaniceperson cannot help it, he must reply
and he will do so again and again...

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 8:44:11 PM1/1/07
to
In article <1167538998....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:

> Point me to a
> single paper published in a reputable scientific journal in the last
> ten years supporting your contention. (You can't, of course.)

[snip]


> You want to convince me that you're right? Show me the reputable
> evidence.
>
> That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
> existence. You have to actually have the evidence.

Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jan 1, 2007, 11:04:42 PM1/1/07
to
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:44:11 -0700, "Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE>
wrote:

>> That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into


>> existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
>
>Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
>value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
>40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?

I'm a working geologist. What's more, I work with the mineral industry. I promote land
for oil and gas exploration. I have serious issue with the Kyoto Accord.

I also think the Climate Audit people are as guilty as picking and cloosing to support
their already-acquired opinions as anyone else.

Justin Alexander

unread,
Jan 2, 2007, 8:38:16 PM1/2/07
to

Translation: You have no reputable evidence to present.

Thanks for conceding the argument, Pete.

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 12:58:10 PM1/3/07
to
In article <1167788296....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:

> > > That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
> > > existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
> >
> > Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
> > value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
> > 40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
>
> Translation: You have no reputable evidence to present.
>
> Thanks for conceding the argument, Pete.

Can't say I noticed any detectable argument, Justin -- unless you really
consider your rudeness & ad homs an argument.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--

Hans Solo to young Luke: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no
match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Justin Alexander

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 9:01:57 PM1/4/07
to

Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> In article <1167788296....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > > > That's the way science works. You can't just wish the evidence into
> > > > existence. You have to actually have the evidence.
> > >
> > > Justin, I can't say I'm much inclined to spend time educating you in the
> > > value of skepticism. But since I've been a working scientist for about
> > > 40 years, I think I have a fair idea of how science works. Do you?
> >
> > Translation: You have no reputable evidence to present.
> >
> > Thanks for conceding the argument, Pete.
>
> Can't say I noticed any detectable argument, Justin -- unless you really
> consider your rudeness & ad homs an argument.

Because, of course, pointing out that you have no reputable evidence to
back up your erroneous claims constitutes an ad hominem in your mind.

Pardon me while I roll my eyes, yet again, at your complete failure to
back up your position while pretending that your irrational posturing
should be meaningful to the rest of us.

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Jan 5, 2007, 2:37:54 PM1/5/07
to
In article <1167962517.5...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:

> > Can't say I noticed any detectable argument, Justin -- unless you really
> > consider your rudeness & ad homs an argument.
>
> Because, of course, pointing out that you have no reputable evidence to
> back up your erroneous claims constitutes an ad hominem in your mind.
>
> Pardon me while I roll my eyes, yet again, at your complete failure to
> back up your position while pretending that your irrational posturing
> should be meaningful to the rest of us.

Quoting from your posts upthread:

> I never realized you were a kook before, Peter.

> Point me to a


> single paper published in a reputable scientific journal in the last
> ten years supporting your contention. (You can't, of course.)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why would I waste my time trying to convince an unpleasant True Believer?

Get a life, Justin.

Pete Tillman
--
"Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." -- Voltaire

Justin Alexander

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 12:35:08 AM1/6/07
to

Yup. You've caught me out. I'm a True Believer in rational thought. I'm
a True Believer in the scientific method. I'm a True Believer in being
convinced only by reputable evidence, not irrational posturing.

And I truly believe that you're a kook because you apparently don't
believe in rational thought, the scientific method, or backing up your
position with reputable evidence.

But feel free to provide some reputable evidence at any time and prove
me wrong, Petey.

John Reiher

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 2:23:59 AM1/6/07
to
In article <1168061708.3...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
"Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:

Sorry fellows, but I've been trying to determine who is on what side of
the global warming argument, but I can't tell, I've lost track of who is
on what side.

The "debate&q