AGW revisited -- James Randi
Thad Floryan
AGW, Revisited
Written by James Randi
Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:14
Though this subject is not one that directly concerns the JREF,
I'm very frequently asked if I'll turn my skeptical eye to it. As
a year-end fling, I'll give it a try. To wit:
An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the
rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to
be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to "belong" in the
scientific community. Why do I find this "unfortunate"? Because
the media and the hoi polloi increasingly depend upon and accept
ideas or principles that are proclaimed loudly enough by
academics who are often more driven by "politically correct"
survival principles than by those given them by Galileo, Newton,
Einstein, and Bohr. (Granted, it's reassuring that they're
listening to academics at all -- but how to tell the competent
from the incompetent?) Religious and other emotional convictions
drive scientists, despite what they may think their motivations
are.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- a group
of thousands of scientists in 194 countries around the world, and
recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize -- has issued several
comprehensive reports in which they indicate that they have
become convinced that "global warming" is and will be seriously
destructive to life as we know it, and that Man is the chief
cause of it. They say that there is a consensus of scientists who
believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning
fossil fuels, but a growing number of prominent scientists
disagree. Meanwhile, some 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PhDs,
have signed The Petition Project statement proclaiming that Man
is not necessarily the chief cause of warming, that the
phenomenon may not exist at all, and that, in any case, warming
would not be disastrous.
Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are
either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as
found in nature. It's often been said that once a conclusion is
reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves
wrong. Failing in that, they arrive at a statement that appears
-- based on all available data -- to describe a limited aspect
about how the world appears to work. And not all scientists are
willing to follow this path. My most excellent friend Martin
Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence
would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain
conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine
any such situation, thus -- in my opinion -- removing him from
the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly.
History supplies us with many examples where scientists were just
plain wrong about certain matters, but ultimately discovered the
truth through continued research. Science recovers from such
situations quite well, though sometimes with minor wounds.
I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid. I base
this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about
planet Earth. This ball of hot rock and salt water spins on its
axis and rotates about the Sun with the expected regularity,
though we're aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space
dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one
centigrade degree in the past 150 years. The myriad of influences
that act upon Earth are so many and so variable -- though not
capricious -- that I believe we simply cannot formulate an
equation into which we enter variables and come up with an
answer. A living planet will continually belch, vibrate,
fracture, and crumble a bit, and thus defeat an accurate
equation. Please note that this my amateur opinion, based on
probably insufficient data.
It appears that the Earth is warming, and has continued to warm
since the last Ice Age, which ended some 10,000 to 20,000 years
ago. But that has not been an even warming. Years of warming
followed by years of cooling have left us just a bit warmer than
before. This conclusion has been arrived at from data collected
at some 1,200+ weather stations in the USA, though bear in mind
that there are very few weather stations over the vast oceans
that cover 70% of our planet, or on the continents Africa, South
America, and especially Antarctica.
We can now record temperatures with much better than the former
fraction-of-a-degree accuracy we had just a decade ago, but that
temperature change appears to be just about half a degree
Centigrade.
Our Earth's atmosphere is approximately 80% nitrogen, 20%
oxygen. Just .04% is carbon dioxide -- a "trace" amount. But from
that tiny percentage is built all the plants we have on
Earth. CO2 is a natural molecule absolutely required for plant
life to survive, and in the process of growing, those plants give
off oxygen. We -- and all animal life -- consume that oxygen and
give off CO2. (No, this is not an example of Intelligent Design.)
If that balance is sufficiently disturbed, species either adapt
or perish. And the world turns...
Incidentally, we have a convenient phenomenon that contributes to
our survival. Doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will not
double the temperature rise, small though it is. The basic principle
of what's known as the "greenhouse effect" is quite simple: in a
glass-enclosed environment, sunlight enters through the glass and
strikes a surface, where it is transformed into longer infrared rays
which do not easily reflect back through the glass; they're trapped
and raise the temperature. However, the greenhouse effect as applied
to our planet is more complicated. The infrared rays that are
reflected back from the Earth are trapped by the greenhouse gases,
water vapor and CO2 -- a process that warms those gases and heats
the Earth. This effect makes Earth habitable, preventing extremes
of temperature. The limit of the influence of CO2 is dictated, not
by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but by the
amount of solar radiation reflected back from the Earth. Once all
the infrared rays have been "captured" by the greenhouse gases there
is no additional increase in carbon dioxide.
Yes, we produce CO2, by burning "fossil fuels" and by simply
breathing. And every fossil fuel produces CO2. Some products produce
more than others, varying with their chemical composition. Methane gas
produces less CO2, wood produces more. But almost paradoxically, when
wood burns it produces CO2, and when a tree dies and rots it produces
yet more CO2. Oceans are huge storage tanks for CO2, but as they warm
up, they hold less of the dissolved gas. They release it into the
atmosphere, then more of it is absorbed back into the oceans. And as
far as humans are concerned, ten times more people die each year from
the effects of cold than die from the heat. This a hugely complex set
of variables we are trying to reduce to an equation...
It's easy enough to believe that drought, floods, hurricanes, and
earthquakes are signs of a coming catastrophe from global warming, but
these are normal variations of any climate that we -- and other forms
of life -- have survived. Earth has undergone many serious changes in
climate, from the Ice Ages to periods of heavily increased plant
growth from their high levels of CO2, yet the biosphere has
survived. We're adaptable, stubborn, and persistent -- and we have
what other life forms don't have: we can manipulate our
environment. Show me an Inuit who can survive in his habitat without
warm clothing... Humans will continue to infest Earth because we're
smart.
In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better
hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as
well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use,
are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in
Global Warming. From Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1891 A Scandal in
Bohemia, I quote:
Watson: "This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you
imagine that it means?"
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise
before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts
to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts...
Chris.B
or is it better informed than any other's?
Regardless of AGW's effects it is having a unifying effect on many
country's leaders who never spoke to each other before. Exposure to
the international press and the chattering classes of the Internet is
a great leveller of local pomp and circumstance. AGW and the Internet
are unifying many non-scientists into discussion and exposure of the
corruption of many of our (supposed) leaders. It makes a change from
the size of our cars, homes, clothes and musical tastes as occurred
after the Global Cooling debate.
If AGW did not exist we are closer to understanding the often
devastating effects we have on this planet. If AGW did not exist we
are better informed about our planet and our own solar system. If AGW
did not exist I hope it has led to more scientific research for its
own sake. If AGW proves not to exist the exercise of its study has
been important and valuable for all species on this planet. If AGW
proves not to exist we in the West can no longer pretend that Africa
and Asia are on another planet. If AGW proves not to exist it has
brought us up sharply against oil depletion and the need for an
alternative fuel for transport and heating. If AGW proves not to exist
it may still allow billions of previously ignored people, on every
continent, increase their levels of comfort through insulation and
better housing. If AGW did not exist it has exposed the effects of
some country's democratic weakness with regards to the needs of the
globe as a whole. GW "Burning" Bush will be remembered for bringing
America's broken, parochial, superstition riddled, electoral system to
the world's attention. Even Hitler did not enjoy such voluntary
loyalty and needed abject fear to control his doubters. Yet outside of
America Bush had few followers and very many doubters. Those who
bought high places by siding in his illegal wars will be punished by
the historians.
AGW is a wake-up call to the human race on very many fronts: National
and international politics, finance, the freedom of the global media,
depletion and sharing of natural resources, pollution, transport, the
human condition, international relationships, water, disease, health,
religion, the human psyche, the communication of large ideas,
terrorism, consumerism, technology, the marine environment, the
distribution of global wealth and the survival of other species than
ourselves. (amongst others)
We badly needed AGW. Even if it proves to be a damp squib and/or we
aren't actively involved in the present warming effects. If AGW merely
gets us away from the terribly damaging, dangerous, selfish and
antisocial behaviour of driving internal combustion vehicles it will
all have been worthwhile. AGW proved that the rats cannot jump ship
once the holds were empty of grain. These are truly momentous times
in human history. AGW may simply be another symptom of a dis-eased
body. Our own. More of the same is no longer possible. This is the
absolutely vital lesson of AGW to the human race. Are we to become the
beneficial corpuscles and arteries of the body of the earth? Carrying
nutrients, protecting and nurturing our host's body? Or do we continue
as the viruses and bacteria which threaten to destroy our only host in
the endless race to consume its rapidly depleting abundance?
Quadibloc
> Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise
> before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts
> to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts...
Sherlock Holmes clearly didn't understand the scientific method!
Well, not quite. One needs facts to start with, in order to suggest a
theory. But then, after having a theory, one has to go out and search
for more facts, because one could make up a theory that makes no real
sense, but happens to fit the facts one has seen so far. So one needs
some facts that come after the theory, to either confirm or falsify
it.
John Savard
David Staup
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:f4cbf1ad-7158-42cb...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> One intelligent man's balanced opinion. But has it any greater value
> or is it better informed than any other's?
>
Yes
AM
> America Bush had few followers and very many doubters. Those who
> bought high places by siding in his illegal wars will be punished by
> the historians.
Since we are studying history here.......
Lets take a look at the middle east and Africa
for a moment.
It was greedy Europeans that caused the strife
in these places. From India, Afghanistan, Syria,
Iraq and many other places that northern Europeans
went to several hundred years ago, and raped the
land of resources, and enslaved their people.
Can we say Belgian Congo people ? Or how did northern
Iraq get to be part of Iraq ? Or or how did Israel
come about ? It was not US citizens that sold black
people into slavery, (initially) it was English
citizens that did that. (and it was black tribal leaders
that sold their fellow tribesmen to the English...)
Even in Europe, the 100yrs war was fought over the Flanders
wool trade. All for $$$....
Look what the Spanish did to the Aztec's and other native
tribes. Another case of European rape of people and land.
The north American continent didn't become settled because
Europeans wanted a new place to live, they wanted the
resources.
And how about the Russians, and what they did to their
own people, and those in Southwest Asia for hundreds of
years ?
Or how about the Boer war ?? And illegal war fought
against the mainly Dutch settlers because of diamonds, and
gold. Yeah, De biers looks real good here...
And Hitler was not an American, he was a European intent
on enslaving the Russian people, and taking the vast
resources in Russia.
And the English still tried to maintain their empire,
tho after WW II they could not pull it off, they tried.
Even after WW II, the French still tried to maintain
their colonial influence in Vietnam, which got the
US involved there in the first place. And this after we
supported Uncle Ho... (who would have been the rightful
leader if we had not)
And China today would not be polluting they way it does if
western society did not want goods made cheaply. And because
of western environmental laws, which prohibit such pollution,
in their countries, the products are made in China, so western
nations can still have them cheaply.
How the Middle East is divided up today is due directly
to European greed in the past........
Illegal War (s) yes, Europe has a rich history of starting
them. Never forget that. History judges them poorly here too.
As the parent of an infantryman that spent his time in hell,
I can tell you that there is NO such thing as a good war !!
Never has been..........
--
AM
Bert Hyman
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
> Or do we continue as the viruses and bacteria which threaten to
> destroy our only host in the endless race to consume its rapidly
> depleting abundance?
>
For these folks, it almost always comes down to this: humans are a
disease upon the earth, which will be better off when we're all gone.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Chris L Peterson
>For these folks, it almost always comes down to this: humans are a
>disease upon the earth, which will be better off when we're all gone.
Well, it's hard to deny that we are very like a disease process when
viewing the Earth as a whole. If we observed another species functioning
as we do, we'd label it "invasive" and implement all sorts of control
measures.
Of course, many pathogens are highly successful (at the expense of their
hosts). We are unique, however, in having a great deal of control over
how we and our host interact. It seems obvious to me that we will be
healthier if our host is healthier- something that is within our power
to effect.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Bert Hyman
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2009 14:44:39 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>For these folks, it almost always comes down to this: humans are a
>>disease upon the earth, which will be better off when we're all gone.
>
> Well, it's hard to deny that we are very like a disease process when
> viewing the Earth as a whole.
Only if you believe that the earth is alive.
It's ironic that they first have to anthropomorphize the earth before
they can demonize humans.
Chris.B
> For these folks, it almost always comes down to this: humans are a
> disease upon the earth, which will be better off when we're all gone.
>
There are no; "these folks", Bert. We are all people here regardless
of opinion or leaning. It is never either/or. Never black or white.
Though they'd like you to believe it is because that makes you easily
manageable. One who can be counted on to do their bidding without
question. Congratulations. Your conditioning was successful.
We could treat our planet and ourselves with far more respect and
improve the lives of billions. So that we don't need to have billions
of extras as life insurance in case of war, famine or disease. Or we
can go on as we are. Meaningless cogs in a vast machine grinding the
planet down to lifeless dust. We are worker ants fed on sugar-coated
toys and mass produced, packaged entertainment to keep us all docile
and self-disciplined. They even had to invent supermarkets to fill
more of our time as working hours and weeks grew shorter. Your only
real value today is how well you can be marketed as a celebrity
commodity. Are you newsworthy? Can they attach advertising to your
image? Good or bad doesn't matter. You want proof? Look at the most
popular videos on YouTube. Who makes the news? Barbie dolls with
plastic tits and bad music guys. The majority in the west are brain
dead, obese zombies. Drooling into their takeaways in front of a TV
screen or commuting to a pointless job in front of another screen.
Extras on the stage of life. Waiting, unthinkingly, for the drug-aided
bliss of the retirement home and eventual recycling. Is this really
maximising the human potential? Pushing the boundaries of the human
experience? At least when most work was manual one had tiredness and a
pile of widgits as reward for one's daily grind. Now all stimulation
is gone and most people spend their lives in a condition more
reminiscent of a sensory deprivation tank. AGW could come and go and
most wouldn't even notice unless the electricity went off.
Bert Hyman
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
> Congratulations. Your conditioning was successful.
That's an interesting way of disposing of anyone who disagrees with you.
Good luck.
Chris L Peterson
>Only if you believe that the earth is alive.
>
>It's ironic that they first have to anthropomorphize the earth before
>they can demonize humans.
I don't believe the Earth is alive, but it contains a vast array of
interrelated living systems. I'm not anthropomorphizing the Earth by
referring to humans as operating like a disease process. Neither am I
demonizing humans- I'm just pointing out the close parallels between our
effects on Earth's biosystems and the effects of many organisms that we
consider pathogens.
Chris L Peterson
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The conception of the human race as a type of virus destroying the
>planet...
Please respond to whomever you think is making this claim. It isn't me.
Quadibloc
> Lets take a look at the middle east and Africa
> for a moment.
>
> It was greedy Europeans that caused the strife
> in these places. From India, Afghanistan, Syria,
> Iraq and many other places that northern Europeans
> went to several hundred years ago, and raped the
> land of resources, and enslaved their people.
> Can we say Belgian Congo people ? Or how did northern
> Iraq get to be part of Iraq ? Or or how did Israel
> come about ?
How did Israel come about?
Yes, Europe did interfere in the Middle East. Palestine became a
British Mandate after the Turkish Empire was defeated.
This made it possible for some Jews to settle in Palestine, from which
their ancestors were previously expelled by the Roman Empire, which
had conquered Judaea in a war of aggression.
But I don't buy the theory that the trouble in the Middle East is to
be blamed on our meddling.
It is not our meddling that causes Egypt - even while it complains
about Switzerland's minaret ban - to prohibit Coptic Christians from
repairing their existing churches, let alone building new ones.
Palestine was partitioned, creating the state of Israel, by the United
Nations, because Arabs there had been successfully incited to engage
in mob violence against Jews.
This partition only gave Israel the land where Jews were living; it
didn't displace the Arabs of Palestine. But because the Arab nations
surrounding Israel chose to invade the new nation in an attempt to
drive it into the sea, Israel was left no choice but to expand to
defensible borders, which created the initial Palestinian refugee
problem.
And the later Six-Day War, which led to the existence of the occupied
territories of the Sinai peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank,
was the result of Egypt conducting a massive military buildup which
would have given it the capability to defeat Israel in a surprise
attack. This military buildup involved purchases of armaments from the
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries.
Then there was the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, which involved an oil
embargo against the Western world - *at a time when the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics still existed*. Yes, while all humanity was
engaged in a mortal struggle for the survival of freedom, the Arab
world was willing, in the name of its petty quarrel with Israel, in
which it had been in the wrong all along, to deny strategic materials
to the Free World, thus placing us all in jeopardy of millenia of
Communist slavery. You know, something like what would have happened
if Hitler won World War II.
Israel isn't a problem. It's the enemies of Israel that are the
problem.
And anybody who didn't know that already should have understood that
as of September 11, 2001.
John Savard
AM
> How did Israel come about?
>
You answered you own question with your post here.
> Yes, Europe did interfere in the Middle East.
Yes in many countries there. And for Europe's national
and economic interests.
> But I don't buy the theory that the trouble in the Middle East is to
> be blamed on our meddling.
But you just said they did. See what you wrote above.
Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, it goes on.....
Read more history, it is replete with European meddling and
a greed for middle eastern resources for hundreds of years.
> Israel isn't a problem. It's the enemies of Israel that are the
> problem.
>
> And anybody who didn't know that already should have understood that
> as of September 11, 2001.
>
I agree with you 100% here ! Israel is the only free
democracy in the middle east. And yet, from what I can
tell, most Europeans hate Israel. Go figure...
David Staup
"Thad Floryan" <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
news:4B29B0CF...@thadlabs.com...
> <http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html>
>
> AGW, Revisited
> Written by James Randi
> Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:14
>
> Though this subject is not one that directly concerns the JREF,
> I'm very frequently asked if I'll turn my skeptical eye to it. As
> a year-end fling, I'll give it a try. To wit:
>
you can add the following to your skepticism!
excerpts:
Yesterday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA), of which I
am President, issued a study (in Russian)
and
The IEA authors calculated that the scale of actual warming for the Russian
territory in 1877-1998 was probably exaggerated by 0.64�C. Since Russia
accounts for 12.5% of the world's land mass, such an exaggeration for Russia
alone should have an impact on the IPCC claim that the global temperature in
the last century has risen by 0.76�C.
Quadibloc
> I agree with you 100% here ! Israel is the only free
> democracy in the middle east. And yet, from what I can
> tell, most Europeans hate Israel. Go figure...
1) "Thanks" to Hitler, there are hardly any Jews in Continental
Europe. Thanks to immigration, there are a lot of Muslims in
Continental Europe. One doesn't want to say things out loud that would
offend one's neighbors.
2) Unlike the United States or Canada, Europe has very limited oil
resources of its own - there are oil fields in Romania, around
Ploesti, IIRC, and there's North Sea oil. Also, natural gas from
Russia plays an important role in European home heating. Thus, it's
not surprising that Europeans will primarily see Georgia, the Ukraine,
and Israel as dangerous nuisances, not democratic allies.
Eastern Europe has its recent history to encourage at least some of
the countries there into taking positions close to that of the United
States, but in general, the Europeans are constrained by their
economic interests in a way that is difficult to imagine in the United
States or Canada without conscious effort. Things were different
before the two World Wars of the 20th Century, when the major European
powers had their colonies to rely on.
John Savard
Pierre Vandevenne
> 1) "Thanks" to Hitler, there are hardly any Jews in Continental
> Europe. Thanks to immigration, there are a lot of Muslims in
> Continental Europe. One doesn't want to say things out loud that would
> offend one's neighbors.
About 1 million, compared to 6.5 millions in Israël and 6 millions in
the US. It is still a bit more than "hardly any".
Europe is perfectly able to offend its neighbours (Turkey for example)
and does so, somewhat unfortunately, quite often.
> 2) Unlike the United States or Canada, Europe has very limited oil
> resources of its own - there are oil fields in Romania, around
> Ploesti, IIRC, and there's North Sea oil.
That's true. One of the reasons why France, for example, gets about
90% of its electricity out of Nuclear power.
> not surprising that Europeans will primarily see Georgia,
Georgia is/was recently the domino played by both the US and Russia in
their war of influence. Cold war style. For all practical purposes,
Russia won that round, at the great disappointment of the Georgians
who were hoping for more support from the US.
Ukraine is split in two: the East is democratically inclined to go to
Russia, the West democratically inclined to go to Europe. This is a
potential trouble spot
I wouldn't describe Ukraine as perceived as a nuisance by the
Europeans, and wouldn't describe the Ukrainians as particularly
unhappy with the EU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_the_European_Union#Ukrainian_domestic_politics_and_the_EU
> and Israel as dangerous nuisances, not democratic allies.
While the majority of people sees Israel as an ally, EU societies
aren't nearly a militaristic minded as the US and therefore have
little sympathy for military excesses against civilian populations.
At this point, it should be noted that France, UK and Germany are much
more worried about the Iranian situation as a threat to Israel that
the US.
> Eastern Europe has its recent history to encourage at least some of
> the countries there into taking positions close to that of the United
> States,
Virtualy all of the political leaders who stood for that have been
ousted, some of them because of that.
> but in general, the Europeans are constrained by their
> economic interests in a way that is difficult to imagine in the United
> States or Canada without conscious effort.
Isn't it amazing that with all these "constraints", the geopolitical
threats around us, the virtual lack of collaboration between our
underfunded intelligence services and our large companies, without
cheap labour, we still manage
to maintain a positive trade balance and much smaller deficits than
the main lesson giver?
Quadibloc
> Europe is perfectly able to offend its neighbours (Turkey for example)
> and does so, somewhat unfortunately, quite often.
I was thinking in terms of individual Europeans worried about
offending the Muslims who now live in the same cities they live in, in
increasing numbers.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
Analysis of the Emails from the University of East Anglia�s Climatic
Research Unit
December 2009
>
>> http://www.pewclimate.org/science/university-east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-analysis
On or about November 19, 2009, as yet unknown persons hacked into an
email server at the University of East Anglia�s Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) in Norwich, U.K. From a much larger number of emails, the hackers
selected and posted more than 1000 on a publicly accessible file server
in Russia. The vast majority of the 1000+ emails are routine and
unsuspicious. Perhaps one or two dozen of the email exchanges give the
appearance of controversy, though no unethical behavior has yet been
documented. Although a small percentage of the emails are impolite and
some express animosity toward opponents, when placed into proper context
they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct.
Click here for more detailed analysis of the email contents and their
significance.
>
>> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-09-09.pdf
>
oriel36
> On 12/17/09 7:43 AM, David Staup wrote:
>
> >news:f4cbf1ad-7158-42cb...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> >> One intelligent man's balanced opinion. But has it any greater value
> >> or is it better informed than any other's?
>
> > ?
>
> > Yes
>
> Research Unit
> December 2009
>
>
>
> >>http://www.pewclimate.org/science/university-east-anglia-cru-hacked-e...
>
> On or about November 19, 2009, as yet unknown persons hacked into an
> (CRU) in Norwich, U.K. From a much larger number of emails, the hackers
> selected and posted more than 1000 on a publicly accessible file server
> in Russia. The vast majority of the 1000+ emails are routine and
> unsuspicious. Perhaps one or two dozen of the email exchanges give the
> appearance of controversy, though no unethical behavior has yet been
> documented. Although a small percentage of the emails are impolite and
> some express animosity toward opponents, when placed into proper context
> they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct.
>
> Click here for more detailed analysis of the email contents and their
> significance.
>
>
>
>
>
There has never been a society who has tried to stop darkness coming
on nor a society that lamented the return of winter,there have been
many societies stretching back to remote antiquity that have marked
the great astronomical cycles but only our race believes that it can
control global temperatures within a certain range and that marks a
point in our history which borders on mass insanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNVIw061vJ4
These great astronomers from 5200 years ago built a monument to
express their knowledge of the great cycles which conditioned their
existence,today I am considered a complete madman for demonstrating
the reasoning behind the rotation of the Earth at a rate of 15 degrees
per hour and a full rotation in 24 hours,this alone is enough to
reflect why humans today choose to believe they can control the
Earth's temperature through a minor atmospheric gas.
Unlike Piltdown man where the empiricists only concerned themselves
with the hoaxer rather than the reasoning which led to the hoax,the e--
mails show the expected fraud involved in creating a crude correlation
between carbon dioxide and temperature variations yet there is no
authority in existence to go to the core problem which is driving all
this - the attempt to go from direct observations made through
timekeeping averages to modelling planetary dynamics and solar system
structure.
Everyone is an astronomer and needs nothing only their value of
intelligence,goodness and a lively curiosity for their surroundings
and the changes that go on constantly in the link between planetary
dynamics and their terrestrial effects,only this lazy middle class
notion that you need a telescope and astronomy is a magnification
exercise at night prevents people from appreciating just how relevant
astronomy actually is and always has been even though it has been
obscured by empirical junk.
They call me insane for believing that the Earth's dimensions and
rotational characteristics are organised around the 24 hour value and
the real insanity is one where nobody else affirms the reasoning where
the average 24 hour day transfers to rotation as a constant,the
servile acquiescence itself becomes a badge of honor and the normal
tendency of people to fight injustice and for all that is good and
lovely about our race is extinguished leaving nothing but a barren
landscape where a race actually believes it can control something like
global temperature.
It is time for intelligent people to fight for a change,not offer
worthless political or national opinions but work in the language of
astronomy which is geometry and so what if people make a thousand
mistakes as long as a better understanding emerges through effort and
astronomy will live again in our race.Let those who engage in Ra/Dec
observing while knowing it is only an observational convenience be
cursed in the eyes of future generations for not presenting it as a
convenience whereas there will always be some who know no
better,cannot understand right ascension as a convenience and are
excused.
Sam Wormley
>
> There has never been a society who has tried to stop darkness...
Humans have done a pretty good job of it with all this
light pollution!
oriel36
I do not know of any other indignity to our race as believing that we
can control global temperature within a certain range,a society than
can go along with this is finished in every sense of the word yet it
takes only a incredibly small effort to alter views to ones which are
stable and productive and away from the empirically generated nonsense
which have brought our race to the brink of insanity.
I have no intention of giving up the fight and even should it only
amount to exposing your kind daily as enemies of the human race based
on pretension,I will consider it worthwhile.
Tom McDonald
> On Dec 20, 7:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/20/09 8:56 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> There has never been a society who has tried to stop darkness...
>> Humans have done a pretty good job of it with all this
>> light pollution!
>
> I do not know of any other indignity to our race as believing that we
> can control global temperature within a certain range,a society than
> can go along with this is finished in every sense of the word yet it
> takes only a incredibly small effort to alter views to ones which are
> stable and productive and away from the empirically generated nonsense
> which have brought our race to the brink of insanity.
What would you put in the room of empiricism?
> I have no intention of giving up the fight and even should it only
> amount to exposing your kind daily as enemies of the human race based
> on pretension,I will consider it worthwhile.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
oriel36
Empiricism has always been a limiting view,even before it emerging
dominance from the late 17th century onwards and the cure for it is
just the same .I often use the mathematician Pascal as a point of
departure for expressing the empirical/mathematical limitations which
become stultifying when approach astronomical phenomena .
"And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of
intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat
matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous,
wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not
the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does
not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical
rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can
feel it." Pascal
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html
An example of the limitations of mathematical intelligence is
encountering something like the limitations of the Ra/Dec system ,a
calendar based convenience that would normally be accepted as a
genuine tool for observing and predicting events within the calendar
system but empiricists try to force this tool into doing something
beyond it limitations.A person who feels uneasy with the idea that the
Earth turns once in 'sidereal time' instead of 24 hours is actually
experiencing intuitive intelligence .mathematicians can override this
experience and continue to believe whatever they need to continue with
their agendas but people with both intuitive and mathematical
intelligence cannot.
Hence the acceptable cure,at least the one Pascal prescribes for
reasonable people -
"When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he
errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that
side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to
him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he
sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all
sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does
not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that
man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err
in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
always true." Pascal
The dysfunctional view of planetary dynamics created by the analemma/
sidereal time mess has shut down the ability to create a wider view of
planetary dynamics and its links with terrestrial sciences thereby
isolating the empirical approach as limiting in the extreme,the great
discoverer of plate tectonics knew why the outlines of his ideas were
not accepted in this manner -
"Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all
earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of
our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only
be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the
information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to
determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets
out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has
the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared
always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what
science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Alfred
Wegener
How an entire race of people came to believe it can control global
temperature levels within a certain range and that climate change is
bewilderingly called a scourge even though it is a vital part of
geological and biological evolutionary studies will hopefully be seen
as a temporary glitch that humanity went through before it came to its
senses,maybe not today or tomorrow,but hopefully soon.See how I do not
engage in personal attacks and try to present the best side of
humanity when given a chance for who else will do it.
yourmommycalled
> "Thad Floryan" <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4B29B0CF...@thadlabs.com...
>
> > <http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html>
>
> > AGW, Revisited
> > Written by James Randi
> > Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:14
>
> > Though this subject is not one that directly concerns the JREF,
> > I'm very frequently asked if I'll turn my skeptical eye to it. As
> > a year-end fling, I'll give it a try. To wit:
>
> you can add the following to your skepticism!
>
>
> excerpts:
>
> Yesterday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA), of which I
> am President, issued a study (in Russian)
>
> and
>
> The IEA authors calculated that the scale of actual warming for the Russian
> territory in 1877-1998 was probably exaggerated by 0.64°C. Since Russia
> accounts for 12.5% of the world's land mass, such an exaggeration for Russia
> alone should have an impact on the IPCC claim that the global temperature in
> the last century has risen by 0.76°C.
Once again David Staup gets caught lying in a post. Even though IEA is
even more an ideologically driven and discredited institute than the
Cato and Marshall Institutes, the IEA actually posted results that
that confirms CRU results. Only a paid shill by the name of Delingpole
is claiming IEA results claim otherwise. Then hoards of fools like
David in the denialosphere picked up on Delingpole's story and it's
now being echoed from one fool to another.
Just look at the Drudge report screaming there cann't be global
warming because Drudge and the rest of the denialosphere claim that
there was a blizzard and record snow fall in Washington DC over the
last few days. Unfortunately it wasn't even close to a blizzard nor
was it a record snow fall. Of course Staup would little a little
detail like facts get in the way of his hate fill
AM
record snow fall in Washington DC over the
> last few days. Unfortunately it wasn't even close to a blizzard nor
> was it a record snow fall.
7th largest snowfall in the DC area on record.
I live here, and they have yet to plow my street.
So it is a record snowfall. Blizzard no.
One thing about the GW people bothers me so. You
treat GW like a religion. Worse you want to jump
to a solution even knowing it will hurt people
trying to find work now. Even worse, you deny all
who disagree with your conclusions. And you cannot
say with 100% certainty what has caused GW.
Does not scientific thought welcome challenges ?
Does not a peaceful exchange of thought both positive
and negative further the interests of all ?
Don't make the cure worse than the disease...
wsne...@hotmail.com
But not as ideologically driven as the IPCC and the UN
> the IEA actually posted results that
> that confirms CRU results. Only a paid shill by the name of Delingpole
> is claiming IEA results claim otherwise. Then hoards of fools like
> David in the denialosphere picked up on Delingpole's story and it's
> now being echoed from one fool to another.
>
> Just look at the Drudge report screaming there cann't be global
> warming because Drudge and the rest of the denialosphere claim that
> there was a blizzard and record snow fall in Washington DC over the
> last few days. Unfortunately it wasn't even close to a blizzard nor
> was it a record snow fall.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/weather/12/19/winter.weather/index.html
Read the second paragraph (or have someone read it for you.) It was a
record for December in DC, and in amounts more similar to those seen
in January and February records.
Also this:
wsne...@hotmail.com
I was amused by this article about the Maldives:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL07611784
I wonder if their President is worried about the carbon emitted by the
jets and ships that bring tourists to the Maldives:
Maybe not.
AM
> I wonder if their President is worried about the carbon emitted by the
> jets and ships that bring tourists to the Maldives:
>
Just as bad to me is the pollution cost for all
those people to get to Copenhagen for the climate
conference Wow........
The are hypocrite's if they think that was Ok...
--
wsne...@hotmail.com
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I wonder if their President is worried about the carbon emitted by the
> > jets and ships that bring tourists to the Maldives:
>
> Just as bad to me is the pollution cost for all
> those people to get to Copenhagen for the climate
> conference Wow........
>
> The are hypocrite's if they think that was Ok...
I read that 1200 additional limos had to be brought in from Germany,
and that there was not enough room at the airport to park all of the
private jets. I would have suggested that the Warmingistas buy or
rent bikes to use during the conference, but I guess the limos were
more convenient. I would also have suggested they ride Copenhagen's
commuter rail to get around, but it turns out that much of Demark's
electricity comes form coal-fired plants.
Chris L Peterson
>7th largest snowfall in the DC area on record.
Indeed, this can be added to the evidence that the short term climate
models now in use are accurate, since they predict just this sort of
winter weather pattern.
AM
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:41:02 -0500, AM <sct...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> 7th largest snowfall in the DC area on record.
>
> Indeed, this can be added to the evidence that the short term climate
> models now in use are accurate, since they predict just this sort of
> winter weather pattern.
This might be so, but again, I don't want the cure
to be worse than the disease... We should spend more
time thinking about solutions rather than jumping
to one's that will hurt us terribly.
Time is still on our side.
It's taken a while to get to where we are. And we
are ignoring solutions that could help us greatly
like nuclear power. This bothers me also.
--
Chris L Peterson
>This might be so, but again, I don't want the cure
>to be worse than the disease... We should spend more
>time thinking about solutions rather than jumping
>to one's that will hurt us terribly.
>Time is still on our side.
Time is most definitely NOT on our side. We're already past the point of
_easy_ return, and we could be quite close to the point of _no_ return.
The longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive the fix.
Of course, I see the solutions that are being suggested as not only
providing a cure for the climate problem, but providing cures for many
of our economic problems as well. In this case, I think the cure not
only fixes the primary disease, but many chronic ills at the same time.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:41:02 -0500, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >7th largest snowfall in the DC area on record.
>
> Indeed, this can be added to the evidence that the short term climate
> models now in use are accurate, since they predict just this sort of
> winter weather pattern.
Wow, cold weather arrives and we get precipitation in the form of
snow! Who would have guessed?
Did the climate models actually predict this particular storm? Do you
have any prognostications for next December?
Davoud
> > ...7th largest snowfall in the DC area on record.
Chris L Peterson:
> Indeed, this can be added to the evidence that the short term climate
> models now in use are accurate, since they predict just this sort of
> winter weather pattern.
Heaviest December snowfall in on record in Maryland. If the climate
models are so #%#!* great, why didn't they predict that my snow blower
would break down less than half way through the job!?
Oh, wait, never mind; that was predicted under "Murphy's Law."
<http://www.davidillig.com/snowdec2009.html>
Davoud
"...everything that can go wrong will go wrong. Whether we must
attribute this to the malignity of matter or to the total depravity of
inanimate things, whether the exciting cause is hurry, worry, or what
not, the fact remains." � Nevil Maskelyne (on performing a magical
effect on stage for the first time), 1908
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
oriel36
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:41:02 -0500, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >7th largest snowfall in the DC area on record.
>
> Indeed, this can be added to the evidence that the short term climate
> models now in use are accurate, since they predict just this sort of
> winter weather pattern.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
I know this one,the highly accurate computer models will predict a
warming trend over the next 6 months for the same ;latitudinal regions
as scientists desperately appeal to world leaders to control this
catastrophic event from happening - for everyone else it is the
seasons,ditto climate change and the tendency of humans to adapt as
they always have done.
Pollution is a different matter.
Tom McDonald
Pollution is too much of some thing in a particular place for a
particular purpose.
F'rinstance, mercury is a pollutant with regard to human beings
when it is taken up by humans, beyond a certain point, either
over time or in one shot.
However, mercury in the very tiny amounts used in vaccines is not
harmful to (most) humans, and has a salutary effect in that use.
CO2 is not a pollutant to humans in current atmospheric
concentrations, and could increase many-fold without causing harm
to the human organism. But for the purpose of climate change, CO2
can be considered a pollutant if its concentration in the
atmosphere rises to the point that it helps the atmosphere hold
in so much heat that the overall temperature of the planet rises
significantly, causing the evils we all know by heart.
We as humans could adapt to much higher levels of CO2; but that
adaptation has the potential to be pretty rough, with social
upheavals and wars attending it.
In much the same way that we could adapt to higher mercury
levels; except folks who could pay for the required prevention
and treatment of mercury poisoning might find themselves in some
jeopardy from those who couldn't.
AM
> Time is most definitely NOT on our side.
But for now, that's just an opinion. We don't really have
all the facts yet.
> Of course, I see the solutions that are being suggested as not only
> providing a cure for the climate problem, but providing cures for many
> of our economic problems as well.
Most Americans disagree with this. And since we live
in a representative democracy, the most Americans *should*
have the say and decide. Not just a few, which is whats
happening right now. (our health care plan is an example
of our govt circumventing the wishes of the people who
elected them...)
oriel36
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 5:47 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:41:02 -0500, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> 7th largest snowfall in the DC area on record.
> >> Indeed, this can be added to the evidence that the short term climate
> >> models now in use are accurate, since they predict just this sort of
> >> winter weather pattern.
> >> _________________________________________________
>
> >> Chris L Peterson
> >> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com\\
>
> > I know this one,the highly accurate computer models will predict a
> > warming trend over the next 6 months for the same ;latitudinal regions
> > as scientists desperately appeal to world leaders to control this
> > catastrophic event from happening - for everyone else it is the
> > seasons,ditto climate change and the tendency of humans to adapt as
> > they always have done.
>
> > Pollution is a different matter.
>
> Pollution is too much of some thing in a particular place for a
> particular purpose.
>
> F'rinstance, mercury is a pollutant with regard to human beings
> when it is taken up by humans, beyond a certain point, either
> over time or in one shot.
>
Yeah,yeah,yeah,the 'mercury trick' is the new way to enforce policies
on food such as fish consumption and make people afraid of eating it
thereby forcing fishery policy by proxy,same with cows , methane, and
meat consumption, carbon dioxide , global temperature and pollution
so that the wider population can dance like numbskulls to whatever
fear bandwagon a few scientists can muster.
Having read the actual article on the 'tricks' to 'hide the decline'
I have little stomach for digressions from the main point - the
original distortions or 'tricks' Newton used to make it appear that
planetary orbital dynamics and solar system structure can be reduced
to a human and experimental level by exploiting the calendar based
predictive convenience of Ra/Dec,unlike the forensics involved with
the climate 'tricks',the elaborate scheme of Newton requires a much
higher level of intelligence,a level I have not seen so far on this
newsgroup.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483
> CO2 is not a pollutant to humans in current atmospheric
> concentrations, and could increase many-fold without causing harm
> to the human organism. But for the purpose of climate change, CO2
> can be considered a pollutant if its concentration in the
> atmosphere rises to the point that it helps the atmosphere hold
> in so much heat that the overall temperature of the planet rises
> significantly, causing the evils we all know by heart.
>
You believe whatever you need to,the fact is that a society which
believes it can control global temperature within a certain range on
account of a minor atmospheric gas is already in the realm of the
unintelligent.I do not contend with the speculation of carbon dioxide
as a global temperature dial but the technical details which
distinguish climate from weather and that requires a full
understanding of the dynamics behind latitudinal temperature
fluctuations.
Today the distance from the geographical poles to the circle of
illumination is at its greatest,this orbital event is called the
solstice and even though it takes only one additional orbital
component to render the explanation for the seasons on a more stable
and productive footing,,nobody wants to touch.
> We as humans could adapt to much higher levels of CO2; but that
> adaptation has the potential to be pretty rough, with social
> upheavals and wars attending it.
>
> In much the same way that we could adapt to higher mercury
> levels; except folks who could pay for the required prevention
> and treatment of mercury poisoning might find themselves in some
> jeopardy from those who couldn't.
> --
> Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Too unintelligent for me.
Davoud
> We as humans could adapt to much higher levels of CO2; but that
> adaptation has the potential to be pretty rough, with social
> upheavals and wars attending it.
We're already in a few wars over our perceived god-given right to add
CO2 to the atmosphere.
Davoud
AM
> We're already in a few wars over our perceived god-given right to add
> CO2 to the atmosphere.
>
> Davoud
And there will be more. It's in our nature, and so far
we can't change it..........
Chris L Peterson
>Most Americans disagree with this. And since we live
>in a representative democracy, the most Americans *should*
>have the say and decide.
That's not entirely true. The whole point of a representative democracy
is to make sure that minority views are also represented. In this case,
since the majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate and have
weak critical thinking skills, I'm happy that we have a few
representatives willing to trust the scientists.
Chris L Peterson
>Did the climate models actually predict this particular storm? Do you
>have any prognostications for next December?
I realize that you don't understand anything about climate, so it's
pretty pointless to offer a response. But I'll try anyway: climate
models don't predict storms, they predict patterns. And the current
models all predict more severe winter storms in much of the northern
hemisphere. Thus, the current weather events represent _evidence_ that
the models are correct, and that's all. The pattern needs to be assessed
over many years, and the longer it holds, the more we can trust the
models.
AM
I agree with you right up to the point where the minority
view overrides the majority.
That's just not right........
Those representatives will pay the price come voting
time. And as they should.
I'm actually worried when this happens the pendulum will
swing drastically the other way. That is just as bad.
We have run up the debt in 11 mos more than all other
presidents. We can't afford to hurt our economy right now.
Martin Brown
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> Time is most definitely NOT on our side.
>
> But for now, that's just an opinion. We don't really have
> all the facts yet.
We have enough facts to know that we are now skating on very thin ice.
It won't be first world countries that really suffer badly - although a
lot of low lying fertile land will be lost to rising sea levels.
By the time that the "deniers for hire" admit publicly that they were
wrong it will be far too late. The inertia in the climate system means
that it will be another 3 decades before the GHGs already emitted reach
equilibrium and we cannot cut emissions quickly.
Thankfully we no longer have a halfwitted Neocon in the Whitehouse, and
not all Republicans are terminally stupid environmental vandals - Arnie
for example seems to be quite a reasonable intelligent guy.
>> Of course, I see the solutions that are being suggested as not only
>> providing a cure for the climate problem, but providing cures for many
>> of our economic problems as well.
>
> Most Americans disagree with this. And since we live
> in a representative democracy, the most Americans *should*
> have the say and decide. Not just a few, which is whats
Whatever happened to the idea of good stewardship of the planet?
> happening right now. (our health care plan is an example
> of our govt circumventing the wishes of the people who
> elected them...)
If they are too stupid to see that providing universal healthcare (and
for that matter education) is a sensible policy for any country that
claims to be in the first world then they don't deserve a vote.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Quadibloc
> Most Americans disagree with this. And since we live
> in a representative democracy, the most Americans *should*
> have the say and decide. Not just a few, which is whats
> happening right now. (our health care plan is an example
> of our govt circumventing the wishes of the people who
> elected them...)
Regardless of what the people of New York may have decided, a big
snowstorm hit their city on the weekend.
Reality doesn't bend to the popular will.
Of course, that doesn't change the other little detail: while
scientists are indeed more likely to be right about climate change
than ordinary people, in general letting the country be run by a self-
appointed group of people who think they know better than anything
else
So how do we deal with this?
Well, one way is to elect intelligent politicians that we trust to
make tough, unpopular decisions at times. So they will, for example,
either not vote to spend money on something - or, if they do, they
will vote to raise taxes corresponding to what they spend. They will
even bring in the draft if that's what it takes to protect the nation.
So, we would expect that intelligent politicians would know that
scientists know what they're talking about, and not listen to the
voice of expediency, or the voice of oil company campaign
contributors.
Now, I don't agree, though, that it's going to help the economy to
make do with solar and wind energy to replace what oil and coal have
been doing for us. If energy for machines becomes dearer, that will
mean it is dearer in relation to human labor, so ordinary people will
be working harder for the same results - that will not create jobs,
making us richer, it will make us poorer.
This is why my recommended solution is for legislators to push nuclear
power - and as one measure to that end, basically make nuclear power
plants and reprocessing facilities and waste disposal sites... subject
to reasonable and proper safety review, but 100% immune to any attempt
at NIMBY politics whatsoever.
"Concerned citizen" groups that want to sabotage energy independence
are to be told to get lost in no uncertain terms.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> We're already in a few wars over our perceived god-given right to add
> CO2 to the atmosphere.
In Afghanistan, America is fighting the Taliban, a regime of fanatics
that sought to protect Osama bin Laden, the mass murderer responsible
for the terrorist murders of September 11, 2001, from justice.
In Iraq, America is fighting to protect the Iraqi people from
terrorists, and it originally entered the area because the regime of
Saddam Hussein defied the terms under which the war he started by
invading Kuwait had ended, by resisting weapons inspections in a
manner which suggested the possibility he could have been concealing
weapons of mass destruction. In the post 9/11 era, even the slim
possibility of this could not be tolerated.
What does any of this have to do with oil?
On the other hand, I suppose the "no blood for oil" demonstrators, if
they wanted to, could make a case that World War II was fought over...
coal. The world tried to buy "Peace in our time" from Hitler by
surrendering Czechoslovakia - but when Hitler and Stalin divided
Poland, with its vast coal reserves, between them, France and Britain
knew that there was no room to risk further delay - as Poland's coal
reserves would enable Germany to conquer all of Europe, if it was
given time to make effective use of them.
As it happened, they did anyways, so Europe was just lucky Pearl
Harbor happened so that D-Day could follow.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> And there will be more. It's in our nature, and so far
> we can't change it..........
It's true we must breathe, but I doubt that was what he was referring
to.
John Savard
AM
> AM wrote:
>> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>> Time is most definitely NOT on our side.
>>
>> But for now, that's just an opinion. We don't really have
>> all the facts yet.
>
> We have enough facts to know that we are now skating on very thin ice.
> It won't be first world countries that really suffer badly - although a
> lot of low lying fertile land will be lost to rising sea levels.
And yet there is no definite proof that will happen.
> Thankfully we no longer have a halfwitted Neocon in the Whitehouse,
No, we have an incompetent charlatan in the White House now
He's been lying non stop, transparency went out the window
after the first day.
> Whatever happened to the idea of good stewardship of the planet?
Nothing, lead by example first please. the climate conference
is a classic example. Polluting for the people to get there
is Ok I guess...
> If they are too stupid to see that providing universal healthcare (and
> for that matter education) is a sensible policy for any country that
> claims to be in the first world then they don't deserve a vote.
Every LEGAL resident here gets to vote. And if they want
to not do anything, that is the way the country runs sorry.
If the idea was soo popular, than why all the backroom deals
and late night votes, and NO transparency ? And the polls
show the majority of Americans want the Govt to not do this.
If people like you ran this country, we would be under
totalitarianism. But then in your mind you know whats
best for everyone obviously.
Like I said GW is a religion to you people, you will not
see any other side but your own. What if you are wrong ?
To make up your mind, and not see any other side sounds
like what Galileo was up against........
Think of all the scientific ideas we held as truths and
were later found to be incorrect.
AM
> Saddam Hussein defied the terms under which the war he started by
> invading Kuwait had ended,
Wrong. We were still at war with Iraq. Just like we are
still at war with n. Korea.
People need to understand what an armistice is, which means
a cessation of hostilities, not an ending of a war.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:04:42 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Did the climate models actually predict this particular storm? Do you
> >have any prognostications for next December?
>
> I realize that you don't understand anything about climate, so it's
> pretty pointless to offer a response.
I realize now that it is YOU who don't understand anything about
climate. If you know so much tell us what to expect for December 2010
in the NE United States. How 2011? 2012?
> But I'll try anyway: climate
> models don't predict storms, they predict patterns.
Oh, you mean like snow in the winter, rain during the rest of the
year? Occasional droughts and occasional floods?
> And the current
> models all predict more severe winter storms in much of the northern
> hemisphere.
The recent snowfall was the highest for December in about 80 years,
but not particularly remarkable otherwise. Should we expect
snowstorms like this every year from now on? Go ahead, answer. Yes or
No?
> Thus, the current weather events represent _evidence_ that
> the models are correct, and that's all.
No, the current weather events are evidence that the weather and the
climate are showing normal natural variability to the extent that that
can be determined given that anything even remotely resembling
detailed record keeping began only about a century or so ago. The
models are incomplete and not correct.
> The pattern needs to be assessed
> over many years,
Really? You don't say?
> and the longer it holds, the more we can trust the
> models.
Which is another way of saying that we can't trust the models at this
time (or maybe ever.)
Martin Brown
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> AM wrote:
>>> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>>> Time is most definitely NOT on our side.
>>>
>>> But for now, that's just an opinion. We don't really have
>>> all the facts yet.
>>
>> We have enough facts to know that we are now skating on very thin ice.
>> It won't be first world countries that really suffer badly - although
>> a lot of low lying fertile land will be lost to rising sea levels.
>
> And yet there is no definite proof that will happen.
There never will be proof. That isn't how science works - we will only
ever be able to say something along the lines of the 95% confidence
interval of what will happen is a global temperature increase in the
range 1.5-4C in the next century and a corresponding rise in sea level.
The band may narrow as we obtain more evidence or better models.
Perhaps we could make it clearer to the population and in particular to
the denialists what we are playing for here by personalising it. If you
want to go for the business as usual route and risk trashing the planet
then fine *provided* that you put into place an escrow agreement that
will result in all your assets being siezed to pay for sorting out the
much bigger mess when the shit hits the fan.
It is an engineering and economics problem to ameliorate the future
damage of AGW. If you see your car engine is about to overheat on the
gauge do you keep driving hard and pray or ease off the gas a bit?
>> Thankfully we no longer have a halfwitted Neocon in the Whitehouse,
>
> No, we have an incompetent charlatan in the White House now
> He's been lying non stop, transparency went out the window
> after the first day.
Just because he is intelligent and can string an coherent sentence
together doesn't make him a liar. It is still too early to say if he
will be a good President, but the bar is set so low after Dubya that he
would really have to work hard at it to do a worse job.
>> Whatever happened to the idea of good stewardship of the planet?
>
> Nothing, lead by example first please. the climate conference
> is a classic example. Polluting for the people to get there
> is Ok I guess...
The climate conference was a waste of time, but the politicos like that
sort of thing.
>> If they are too stupid to see that providing universal healthcare (and
>> for that matter education) is a sensible policy for any country that
>> claims to be in the first world then they don't deserve a vote.
>
> Every LEGAL resident here gets to vote. And if they want
> to not do anything, that is the way the country runs sorry.
When the people are too poorly educated to understand what is in their
own best interests it becomes an interesting question as to how the
political leaders should act. Anti-intellectualism is far too popular.
US populism would have you burning books on evolution and cosmology at
street corners - do you really want to return to the dark ages?
> If the idea was soo popular, than why all the backroom deals
> and late night votes, and NO transparency ? And the polls
> show the majority of Americans want the Govt to not do this.
Mainly because they have been brainwashed by the insurance companies
slimy salesmen who want to keep their huge slice of the cake. You know
that most first world nations provide full universal healthcare to all
for about two thirds of the per capita cost of the US system.
>
> If people like you ran this country, we would be under
> totalitarianism. But then in your mind you know whats
> best for everyone obviously.
If you have a scientific or engineering problem you ask a scientist or
engineer. It doesn't matter whether or not you like the answer Nature
will do whatever it wants irrespective of your political views.
>
> Like I said GW is a religion to you people, you will not
> see any other side but your own. What if you are wrong ?
The odds of that at present are less than 5% and given the immense costs
of the 95% of likely scenarios it is appropriate now to take all the
no-regrets energy efficiency measures that we can. I don't actually
favour going beyond that at present because I don't trust nations to do
what they promise.
>
> To make up your mind, and not see any other side sounds
> like what Galileo was up against........
Your analogy cuts both ways. The denialist movement starts from their
extreme right wing politics and refuses point blank to look at the
scientific evidence. They invent "dittohead science" to suit their aims.
> Think of all the scientific ideas we held as truths and
> were later found to be incorrect.
There are not that many of them - comparatively few serious paradigm
shifts have occurred. Most scientific progress is a refinement of the
earlier theories that works better in more extreme circumstances.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > Saddam Hussein defied the terms under which the war he started by
> > invading Kuwait had ended,
>
> Wrong. We were still at war with Iraq. Just like we are
> still at war with n. Korea.
>
> People need to understand what an armistice is, which means
> a cessation of hostilities, not an ending of a war.
Technically speaking, the United States hasn't been at war with anyone
since the end of World War II. There have been armed conflicts, but
not one of them was officially a "war"; this was to show respect for
the U.N. Charter, even though, as the result of putting the Soviet
Union in the Security Council, the United Nations was not in fact an
effective organization for keeping peace.
John Savard