Campaign Finance and Global Warming Uncertainty
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.
It is alleged that the Clinton Administration received
foreign campaign funding, and that such contributions affected
policy decisions. But we do not have proof.
It is alleged that Earth faces a global warming catastrophe
caused by burning fossil fuels. But we do not have proof.
These allegations are neither easily proven nor disproven.
We must carefully evaluate available evidence and act reasonably
given incomplete information.
Regarding campaign funding, we are reasonably certain that
SOMEBODY did SOMETHING wrong, based on available testimony and
the number of associates of the Clinton Administration who have
fled the country, taken the 5th Amendment, or suffered acute
memory loss.
Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
fuels. Available computer models are unable to explain past
climate patterns, so predictions of the future must be viewed
with skepticism.
If global warming is a genuine threat, draconian measures
supported by the Clinton Administration may be warranted.
But if scientists are wrong, the proposed treaty will inflict
needless pain and suffering on the U.S., and the treaties
entered into will be difficult to reverse.
If the Clinton Administration has been influenced by
foreign contributors, we must give utmost scrutiny to any
treaties or trade agreements negotiated by the Clinton
Administration.
While neither can be proven, the notion that the Clinton
Administration has been influenced by foreign contributions
seems much more credible than the predictions of a global
warming disaster, and Congress should act accordingly.
===================================================================
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. Weyrich Computer Consulting
mailto:orv...@weyrich.com http://www.weyrich.com
LET US HELP DEVELOP YOUR WEB PAGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Nudds
(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
: fuels.
Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
accusations, no significant references are produced.
The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
cowards who fear societal change.
--
<---->
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.
Sorry, you are mistaken ... I am old enough to REMEMBER the
scientific discussions of the day.
Check out, for example Science, July 9, 1971, pg 138: Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate.
Yes, I know that Science is a popular newsletter, but it is a
repected one. I don't have peer reviewed journals handy to back
up EITHER global warming OR global cooling. Yes, I know that
2500 scientists recently produced a report, but I understand that
the very short ABSTRACT which Al Gore llikes to cite was produced
by one of his appointees, and doesn't well represent the full works.
Conveniently, this government-sponsored report does not appear to be
available in computer-readable form in it's entierity, making it hard
to prove allegations.
If there WERE strong scientific evidence supporting global warming,
YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR that Al Gore et al would MAKE SURE
that the full report were readily available. When that happens, I
will consider the facts. Until then, I will dismiss the hype.
dgri...@nucleus.com
On 6 Dec 1997 19:43:04 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
>: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
>: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
>: fuels.
>
> Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
>claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
>provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
>accusations, no significant references are produced.
>
> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
>ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
>cowards who fear societal change.
>
Mr. Nudds you are the one who is in denial about scientists not
warning about an imminent ice age. Proof of this comes from a book
called The Cooling by Lowell Ponte. This book was published in 1976 by
Prentice Hall. The following excerpt is from that book.
"Appendix One (Page 247)
The Shape of Cooling
In January 1975 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
entitled Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action. There
is, it said "a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
could befall the earth within the next hundred years."
From such a staid group the statement was surprisingly strong, but the
panel of experts authorizing it had good reasons for what they said:
(1) global climate was already cooling; Northern Hemispheric
temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940's; (2) the
period of warm climate the Earth enjoyed between 1880 and 1940 was
highly abnormal; when considered in the context of world history, we
have seen the warmest century of the last millennium, which was part
of the warmest 10,000-year period of the last million years, and this
odd warmth cannot be expected to last; (3) climate changes in the past
have followed well-defined cycles, and if these cycles continue we can
anticipate colder climate to return soon.
Two of the cycles run at intervals of 20,000 years and 2,500 years
during interglacials (periods of ice retreat). The shorter cycle
apparently reached its coolest point during the recent "Little Ice
Age" from 1430 until 1850, and is now moving toward increased warmth.
But the longer cycle brings severe cooling every 10,000 years, and it
last did this 10,000 years ago. Thus, said the NAS report, "the
question naturally arises as to whether we are indeed on the brink of
a [10,000-year] period of colder climate."
The NAS provided a series of charts showing cycles in climate and
global ice volume. The regularity of cycles lasting 100,000 years,
20,000 years, and 2,500 years is evident:"
From The Cooling by Lowell Ponte Published 1976 by Prentice Hall
On the back cover of this book were ringing endorsements from Senator
Claiborne Pell, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and
International Environment and Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Deputy Head,
Climate Project, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
So Mr. Nudds how do you explain the fact that scientists *did* warn of
an imminent ice age?
nee...@syix.com
dgri...@nucleus.com wrote:
> On 6 Dec 1997 19:43:04 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
> (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent
> > onset of ice ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental
> > denialists, and cowards who fear societal change.
> Mr. Nudds you are the one who is in denial about scientists not
> warning about an imminent ice age. Proof of this comes from a book
> called The Cooling by Lowell Ponte. This book was published in 1976
by
> Prentice Hall. The following excerpt is from that book.
> "Appendix One (Page 247)
> The Shape of Cooling
> In January 1975 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
> entitled Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action. There
> is, it said "a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
> could befall the earth within the next hundred years."
> So Mr. Nudds how do you explain the fact that scientists *did* warn
of
> an imminent ice age?
More than likely, Nudds was either to young or not yet born to remember
the ice age alarmist. Although I was fairly young, I do recall articles
in all the newspapers regarding the theory. For a while it was the rage.
In fact, these doom-day, fairy tale theorist predicted the earth could
become an icy tundra within 50 years, I believe was how the STORY
went...
LN
H.Selvitella
>(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
>: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
>: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
>: fuels.
>
> Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
>claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
>provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
>accusations, no significant references are produced.
>
> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
>ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
>cowards who fear societal change.
You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
the past?
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:41:08 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
I guess we're turning on the furnace early to get ready for the next
one. See where 1997 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded?
beating out 1995? Notice how most of the years since 1990 have pretty
much been hot year record setters? Notice all them hot years in the
eighties? And that the rise in temperature is primarily in the daily
lows rather than the daily highs, like those warming models predict?
Hard to know why it's hotter than it used to be - but I do note that
it seems the amount of CO2, at least if ice cores correctly measure
it, is at about a 160,000 year high. I hear cutting trees and burning
fuel makes CO2.
Man made global warming isn't a proven scientific fact, but there are
some suggestive coincidences out there, which suggest we should cool
it on the gasses for a while.At least, that's how most Nobel science
prize winners see it.
-------------
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
H.Selvitella
Thanks for the, uh, background. The argument, previously, centered on
the question of "natural" vs. home-made changes in global temperature.
Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
back too far the other way.
It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
Before the stampede one reflects on the credibility attaching to the
alarm. But when his neighbors leap out of their seats and begin to
scream in terror he is apt to conclude that the time for reflection is
over. He doesn't KNOW if the theatre is afire or not but he joins the
stampede in a panic.
This is what I know about panic.
In an army training detatchment an hundred or so recruits ( I was one
of them) were instructed to sit down in a semi-circle (out of doors!),
huddling as closely together as we could manage by crossing our legs
underneath us as we sat, arms pinned down by the bodies to either
side.
While explaining some point of procedure a cannister of tear-gas was
unexpectedly detonated in our midst.
The lecturer calmly withdrew his gas-mask from its container which was
hung over his shoulder while he was talking.
For one instant we were absolutely stunned, tracking the events
described visually but not immediately drawing any conclusion about
the meaning of them.
At about the same moment that we got our first sniff, and felt the
initial sting of the gas in our eyes someone yelled the textbook alarm
that we were taught to react to: GAS! GAS! GAS!
In the military context gas--indeed any of the CBR perils--does not
equate with "Did you forget to turn off the burner, honey?" It equates
with pain and suffering, or certain death, or both.
The whole damned detatchment went into panic mode, myself included.
Eyes closed. Respiration slammed shut. And get the hell out any way
you can. Any yielding obstacle to escape will yield, enemy or friend.
There is no reflection upon the nature of the problem. There is no
detailed record of the events attending the panic. Some FOUGHT our way
OUT of the trap, found sufficient space in the melee to slap on our
own gas masks with enough breath remaining to clear them properly.
There weren't many of us who "survived". (In fact, if it had been
chlorine gas--a standard, I myself would not have "made it". That
first whiff might have been enough.)
(This had been an object lesson for us. The orders of the day had
included the extrordinary imperative to include gas masks amongst our
field equipment. Many ignored the order.)
These, of course, were controlled circumstances. There were lumps and
bruises and tears, and for some the involuntary expulsion of excellent
Army chow. There was no real danger other than the inner one that
previously had not been recognized. The danger of panic itself.
Its an ugly thing and nothing with which to toy.
What the law will do to the weasel who shouted fire in a crowded
theatre doesn't come close to a remedy.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:21:28 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 17:29:02 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:41:08 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Man made global warming isn't a proven scientific fact, but there are
>>some suggestive coincidences out there, which suggest we should cool
>>it on the gasses for a while.At least, that's how most Nobel science
>>prize winners see it.
>
>Thanks for the, uh, background. The argument, previously, centered on
>the question of "natural" vs. home-made changes in global temperature.
>
>Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
>reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
>
>There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
>back too far the other way.
>
>It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
>the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
>case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
>exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
CO2 appears to be at a high for 160,000 years - some wobble - headed
straight up. Why take chances?
Govts act in an uncertain world - there ain't no other kind.
But since soon we will know more on warming, and since the risk seems
not so horrible (as compared to ozone depletion, where missing the
call might kill virtually all life) I don't mind a slowish start on
the possible problem - especially if the start solves other problems
as well.
If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
H.Selvitella
>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
Buy an air-conditioner.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>
>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>Buy an air-conditioner.
I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
much. I only want cost-efective actions.
By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
climate.
H.Selvitella
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:27:47 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>>
>>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>>Buy an air-conditioner.
>
>I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
>much. I only want cost-efective actions.
>
>By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
>more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
>since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
>climate.
If you're trolling for support here's mine: NO MONEY FOR THE
GLOBAL-WARMING SCARE. NO EXTORTION OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER "JUST IN
CASE". The gravy train is coming to a well deserved resting place.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 05:45:38 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:27:47 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>>>
>>>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>>>Buy an air-conditioner.
>>
>>I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
>>much. I only want cost-efective actions.
>>
>>By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
>>more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
>>since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
>>climate.
>
>If you're trolling for support here's mine: NO MONEY FOR THE
>GLOBAL-WARMING SCARE. NO EXTORTION OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER "JUST IN
>CASE". The gravy train is coming to a well deserved resting place.
Don't you mean to say "rusting" place? All the moisture and all.
Did I mention the recent satellite measures - confirming the sea level
has risen 3 mm in each of the past two years, more than expected?
You talk about money - which is exactly the right issue - it might be
expensive to have a bunch of buildings under water.
H.Selvitella
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:08:24 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 05:45:38 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:27:47 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:43:36 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:47:57 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If it warms for natural reasons - shouldn't we still try to cool it?
>>>>
>>>>Hell no! Do you have any idea what kind of MONEY you're talking about?
>>>>Buy an air-conditioner.
>>>
>>>I don't think reducing green house gasses will necessarily cost that
>>>much. I only want cost-efective actions.
>>>
>>>By the way - another day another study - the warming model predicts
>>>more moisture at mid latitudes, drying in tropics, it says. New study
>>>since 1900 says that is what has happened. Fung et al Nov. journal of
>>>climate.
>>
>>If you're trolling for support here's mine: NO MONEY FOR THE
>>GLOBAL-WARMING SCARE. NO EXTORTION OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER "JUST IN
>>CASE". The gravy train is coming to a well deserved resting place.
>
>Don't you mean to say "rusting" place? All the moisture and all.
Nice. A more appropriate trysting place for pols and bureaucrats
withal.
>Did I mention the recent satellite measures - confirming the sea level
>has risen 3 mm in each of the past two years, more than expected?
>
>You talk about money - which is exactly the right issue - it might be
>expensive to have a bunch of buildings under water.
We seem to submerge entire villages--Aswan and the Yangtze project
most notably--absorbing the consequences in due course. We have done
so here with hardly a murmur.
Rig up a rain-barrel Leroy--hard for the hydraulic sewerage nuts to
charge you for washing your face with rainwater. And some say its good
for the complexion!
Scott Nudds
: >(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: >: Regarding global warming, just a few decades ago, scientists
: >: said Earth was entering another ice age caused by burning fossil
: >: fuels.
: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > Huh? What have you been smoking. Denialists often make these silly
: >claims regarding ancient predictions about ice ages, but when pressed to
: >provide references to peer reviewed journals to support such lame
: >accusations, no significant references are produced.
: >
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: >ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: >cowards who fear societal change.
dgri...@nucleus.com wrote:
: Mr. Nudds you are the one who is in denial about scientists not
: warning about an imminent ice age. Proof of this comes from a book
: called The Cooling by Lowell Ponte. This book was published in 1976 by
: Prentice Hall. The following excerpt is from that book.
Libertarian Lowell Ponte? Science correspondent for Readers Digest?
Author of such articles as...
The Menace of Electronic Smog
Who Will Control the Weather
How a Change in The Weather Changes You
Food: America's Secret Weapon
Secret Scents That Affect Behavior
How Color Affects You Moods and Health
Bioagnetism: An Awesome Force in Our Lives
Why Our Weather Is Going Wild
The Menace of Indoor Pollution
Killer Diseases From the Dawn of Time
Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in Cigarettes
He's not a scientist is he?
I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
cowards who fear societal change.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
nee...@syix.com wrote:
: More than likely, Nudds was either to young or not yet born to remember
: the ice age alarmist. Although I was fairly young, I do recall articles
: in all the newspapers regarding the theory.
Oh, there were articles in newspapers, and in magazines. But we
aren't talking about articles in newspapers now are we. We are talking
about a imminent global cooling as is alleged to have been predicted by
the worlds scientists.
Never happened. Global warming denialists who claim that the
scientific community did make such a warning are either willing dupes or
liars.
I will ask again for proof that the worlds scientists predicted
imminent global cooling.
There, you have yet another chance to fail to provide references.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: > ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: > cowards who fear societal change.
(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: Sorry, you are mistaken ... I am old enough to REMEMBER the
: scientific discussions of the day.
: Check out, for example Science, July 9, 1971, pg 138: Atmospheric
: Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on
: Global Climate.
That's it? One reference? And it's only a letter? Come on now.
Others have managed to supply two references in the several years that
denialists have been making false statements about scientists warming
about impending global cooling.
Your failure to provide any significant reference proves once again
that denialist claims are based on self deception, poor memory and a
desire to support the denialist religion rather than reality.
(Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.) wrote:
: If there WERE strong scientific evidence supporting global warming,
: YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR that Al Gore et al would MAKE SURE
: that the full report were readily available.
There is overwhelming evidence, including the rather spectacular fact
that 10 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 17
years.
And 1997 is apparently going to be the hottest year ever recorded.
Among scientists, the debate over reality has long been over. The
only people left questioning the reality of observed warmer global
temperatures are oil industry shills and mindless denialists.
This is similar to the situation of denial that existed for tobacco.
In the end, only money grubbing liars and fools were denying that
smoking did not cause cancer.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: >ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: >cowards who fear societal change.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
: the past?
I do. Do you see the word "imminent" in the paragraph above?
--
<---->
H.Selvitella
On 11 Dec 1997 22:18:29 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
You mean the one between "the" and "onset"?
Following the reference to entropic scientists overheating the
rhetoric of the Chicken Little vanguard? Yes. I SEE it.
And do you see that WERE it imminent you would be as impotent to
reverse it then as now--IF, in fact, the cause were the wobble
phenomenon to which above a writer--myself--referred?..a coward, no
doubt, fearing SOCIETAL change.
John Daly
Scott Nudds pontificated:
> I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
> ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
> cowards who fear societal change.
John Daly informs:
Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about liars, as this
reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually challenged, or
historically ignorant.
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols -
Effects
of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971,
p.138-141
You could at least get your facts right before you make rash statements
and abuse other people. This paper was a peer-reviewed paper in Science
by the greenhouse guru himself Stephen Schneider, in which he was
warning of an ice age.
Just to prove this reference is what I say it is, here is the abstract
in full -
**************************** text begins ****************************
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying
the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern.
In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
appears to have increased by 7 percent. During the same period,
the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been
augmented by as much as 100 percent 3 .
How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere
affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it
possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of
the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale
effects on the global temperature that the process may run away,
with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus
(700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?
We report here on the first results of a calculation in which
separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature
of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere.
It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount
of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand
years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of
less than 2 deg.K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the
aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant.
An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration
in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a
possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean
surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K.
If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature
decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
***************************** text ends ************************
Not only did Schneider warn of an ice age, but he even dropped the
bucket on the potential of CO2 to warm the planet, claiming that
even an EIGHT-FOLD increase in CO2 would warm the planet LESS THAN
2 deg.C And now the Green Taliban are going hysterical about a mere
doubling of CO2, which on Schneider's reasoning would warm the
planet only a few tenths of a degree. How times change.
But, Liberal Scott Nudds, you got your assertions plain wrong.
There was an ice age scare in the 70s, led by scientists.
I was there and remember it well. The book `The Cooling' by
Lowell Ponte you sneered at had a testimonial written on the
back cover by, you guessed it, Stephen Schneider.
So the book did get the imprimatur of the scientific establishment
of the time. There was also a book and TV documentary called
"The Weather Machine" by Nigel Calder - same theme.
John Daly
"Still Waiting For Greenhouse"
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly
Rich Puchalsky
John Daly (da...@vision.net.au) wrote:
: Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about liars, as this
: reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually challenged, or
: historically ignorant.
Daly apparently doesn't know that this particular reference has been
explicitly discussed on sci.env many times. In fact, this whole topic
of whether Ice Age predictions occured has a whole Web page just on it.
This Web page is linked to from my page (listed in my .sig). I recommend
that everyone read the FAQ before continuing the argument.
By the way, the short answer is that Daly is wrong.
: Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols -
: Effects
: of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971,
: p.138-141
Why is this cited as Schneider and Rasool, by the way? I thought the cite
was Rasool and Schneider.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
Scott Nudds
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
: reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
: There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
: back too far the other way.
Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
completely predictable manner.
The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
sun.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
: the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
: case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
: exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
Observation provides the best evidence. Here is a graph...
Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42)
1867 ....*
1887 .......*
1897 ..........................*
1907 ...........*
1917 ............*
1927 ...............................*
1937 .......................................*
1947 .......................................*
1957 ......................................*
1967 ................................*
1977 .........................................*
1987 .................................................*
1997 .........................................................*
1997 - Hottest year on record.
--
<---->
Steinn Sigurdsson
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
> earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
> completely predictable manner.
> The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
> orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
> idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
> sun.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
Large here means tens of degrees.
Such large "wobbles" would have very major climate consequences.
There is also intriguing evidence for one such even in
the Earth's past - see Kirschvink et al Science 277 541 1997
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On 14 Dec 1997 14:31:35 +0000, Steinn Sigurdsson
<ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
And for an excellent little film on this exact topic I highly
recommend the British film from about 1961 called "The Day the Earth
Caught Fire" also released with a different title in some places. It
gets really hot in London. Then there are stories of odd weather in
various places. Two London reporters, who fall for each other, start
seeing a pattern. Great acting.
char...@hal-pc.org
I find it amusing when it is noted that a big enviro-nut has
"shot himself in the foot" with his own words. A cynical
person like myself would have to wonder who has paid Mr.
Schneider off, and how much money it took to change his
opinion so radically. It appears that many so-called leaders
of the enviro movement are being manipulated for political
reasons.
In article <349297...@vision.net.au>,
John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> wrote:
>Scott Nudds pontificated:
>
>> I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
>
>> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent
onset of ice
>> ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental
denialists, and
>> cowards who fear societal change.
>
>John Daly informs:
>
>Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about
liars, as this
>reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually
challenged, or
>historically ignorant.
>
>Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and
Aerosols -
>Effects
>of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9
July 1971,
>p.138-141
>
H.Selvitella
On 14 Dec 1997 06:03:45 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Earth has wobbled out of amenable ranges in the past. And there is no
>: reason to believe that it can't or won't do so in the future.
>
>: There is neither a reason to believe that it can't or won't wobble
>: back too far the other way.
>
> Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
>earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
>completely predictable manner.
Ah. The voice of reason. You have a copy of the master plan? You KNOW
what brought the ice age(s) upon us? You can predict the future?
> The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
>orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
>idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
>sun.
How interesting. Do you have time to elucidate the nonsensical
elements of your analogy?
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: It is also POSSIBLE that we are cooking our own goose--or weasel, as
>: the case may be--but, until some significant PROOF that this is the
>: case is introduced, it comes as a puerile and somewhat dangerous
>: exercise to demand any manner of GOVERNMENT reaction.
>
> Observation provides the best evidence. Here is a graph...
>
>
> Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42)
>
> 1867 ....*
> 1887 .......*
> 1897 ..........................*
> 1907 ...........*
> 1917 ............*
> 1927 ...............................*
> 1937 .......................................*
> 1947 .......................................*
> 1957 ......................................*
> 1967 ................................*
> 1977 .........................................*
> 1987 .................................................*
> 1997 .........................................................*
> 1997 - Hottest year on record.
>
And do you have at hand the surveys that record the fluctuations in
attitude of Earth's axes relative to the sun that we may plot on your
graph?
Looks like the contour indicated by the points you have charted could
reflect a phase of negative wobble if the norm of inclination of
Earth's polar axis to the sun were given as a straight line.
You might also plot, at the appropriate coordinates, the recorded
velocity of Earth's spin and turn, the weight of its mass and the
reading of its core temperature, that is, decade by decade as your
graph reads.
H.Selvitella
>On 14 Dec 1997 14:31:35 +0000, Steinn Sigurdsson
><ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>>
>>
>>> Huh? Selvitella should know enough about physics to realize that the
>>> earth does not "wobble" at random, but does so in a well defined and
>>> completely predictable manner.
>>
>>> The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
>>> orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
>>> idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
>>> sun.
>>
>>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
>>The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
>>to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
>>of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
>>to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
>>but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
>>amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
>>triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
>>Large here means tens of degrees.
>>
>>Such large "wobbles" would have very major climate consequences.
>>
>>There is also intriguing evidence for one such even in
>>the Earth's past - see Kirschvink et al Science 277 541 1997
>>
>>
>And for an excellent little film on this exact topic I highly
>recommend the British film from about 1961 called "The Day the Earth
>Caught Fire" also released with a different title in some places. It
>gets really hot in London. Then there are stories of odd weather in
>various places. Two London reporters, who fall for each other, start
>seeing a pattern. Great acting.
At least you're relentlessly consistent, Leroy. :-)
Do you get a salary for doing this?
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds pontificated:
: > I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
: > The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
: > ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
: > cowards who fear societal change.
John Daly wrote:
: Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about liars, as this
: reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually challenged, or
: historically ignorant.
The single reference churned up by Daly is <gasp> the very same
<singular> reference that is churned out every time the challenge is
issued.
One article, particularly one that was not accepted by the scientific
community at large does not constitute any meaningful warning. In fact
it shows the exact opposite. Had there been acceptance there would be a
large number of articles that could be found proposing, and supporting
the proposition.
Just as a single point does not make a trend, a single journal article
does not constitute anything meaningful unless it is supported by
additional research. Research which in this case did not corroborate the
extent of the authors assertions.
So once again, we find global warming denialists incapable of
meaningfully substantiating their ignorant claims.
---
Professor Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La
Jolla, California, is one of the world's respected authorities on
atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas now confirmed -- beyond
reasonable doubt -- to have contributed to the rise in global average
temperatures of one degree Celsius over the past century. - Ehsan Masood
- Nature Magazine Science Update 1997
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: On 11 Dec 1997 22:18:29 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
: >(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: >: You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
: >: the past?
: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > I do. Do you see the word "imminent" in the paragraph above?
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: You mean the one between "the" and "onset"?
Yes that's the word. Now that we know that you can read the word,
perhaps you can show that you can understand its meaning by providing a
series of references that show that the worlds scientists were warning
of imminent global cooling.
You will note that the observation the earth has experienced ice ages
in the past, in now way implies that a new ice age is imminent.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Following the reference to entropic scientists overheating the
: rhetoric of the Chicken Little vanguard? Yes. I SEE it.
Strange talk coming from someone who seems incapable of proving his
allegation that an imminent ice was predicted by the worlds scientists
back in the 70's.
While your jabber is strange, it is not strange that you can not
support your allegations, as they are the fabrication of sick denialist
minds.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: And do you see that WERE it imminent you would be as impotent to
: reverse it then as now--IF, in fact, the cause were the wobble
: phenomenon to which above a writer--myself--referred?
The only thing wobbling here are the slack jaws of ignorant global
warming denialists.
--
<---->
William Connolley
In article 5A...@vision.net.au, John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> writes:
>Scott Nudds:
>> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
>> ages.
>Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols -
>Effects
>of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971,
>p.138-141
>You could at least get your facts right before you make rash statements
>and abuse other people.
Hmm, people talking about getting facts straight should get the order of
their authors correct.
And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
But apart from these quibbles, the R+S paper is interesting. Notice that it does
*not* predict future climate - it is a sensitivity study about 2 competing
effects. Does it "warn about the imminent onset of ice ages"? Certainly it
raises it as a possibility which "cannot be ruled out within the next century",
but that is perhaps rather a weak warning.
More comment at: http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/sci.env.cooling.html
- William
---
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
Rich Puchalsky
William Connolley (w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article 5A...@vision.net.au, John Daly <da...@vision.net.au> writes:
: >Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols -
: Hmm, people talking about getting facts straight should get the order of
: their authors correct.
: And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
: abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
: perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
Yep. One of the right-wing propaganda outfits decided that, since they
had the famous Schneider quote, they would try to tie every "bad" thing to
him in order to have an individual figure they could demonize. Therefore
this paper is always cited by them with the authors reversed, even though
Rasool was actually first author. It's a classic case of a conflict
between science and propaganda. Daly has undoubtedly had this pointed
out to him in the past, but just like McCarthy, Sigurdsson et al he'll
keep on repeating the propaganda until corrected forceably enough. It's
unlikely that anyone will bother to do that for this minor issue, so he'll
probably keep on with it until the lead propagandists stop pumping him up.
After all, if enough effort is taken to correct him, he can just switch to
some other lie.
H.Selvitella
On 16 Dec 1997 00:40:15 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>: On 11 Dec 1997 22:18:29 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>
>: >(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: >: You accept that earth has undergone an age or ages of severe icing in
>: >: the past?
>
>: (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>: > I do. Do you see the word "imminent" in the paragraph above?
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: You mean the one between "the" and "onset"?
>
> Yes that's the word. Now that we know that you can read the word,
>perhaps you can show that you can understand its meaning by providing a
>series of references that show that the worlds scientists were warning
>of imminent global cooling.
You are perhaps as deluded by your sense of self-importance as by
other inconclusive arguments.
> You will note that the observation the earth has experienced ice ages
>in the past, in now way implies that a new ice age is imminent.
>
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Following the reference to entropic scientists overheating the
>: rhetoric of the Chicken Little vanguard? Yes. I SEE it.
>
> Strange talk coming from someone who seems incapable of proving his
>allegation that an imminent ice was predicted by the worlds scientists
>back in the 70's.
>
> While your jabber is strange, it is not strange that you can not
>support your allegations, as they are the fabrication of sick denialist
>minds.
The only allegations here stated have been made by you.
You seem very intolerant of questions for a champion of science.
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: And do you see that WERE it imminent you would be as impotent to
>: reverse it then as now--IF, in fact, the cause were the wobble
>: phenomenon to which above a writer--myself--referred?
>
> The only thing wobbling here are the slack jaws of ignorant global
>warming denialists.
Precious little heat emanating from your enlightenment.
We'll probably survive it.
Scott Nudds
char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
: I find it amusing when it is noted that a big enviro-nut has
: "shot himself in the foot" with his own words. A cynical
: person like myself would have to wonder who has paid Mr.
: Schneider off, and how much money it took to change his
: opinion so radically.
Looks like we are witnessing the manufacture of another crackpot
conspiracy theory.
Scott Nudds
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Ah. The voice of reason. You have a copy of the master plan? You KNOW
: what brought the ice age(s) upon us? You can predict the future?
Those theories that I have seen proposed to explain past ice ages
certainly don't contain alleged large scale <random> alterations in the
orientation of the surface of the earth as you have suggested.
You know... Have you ever thought that random events are somewhat
difficult to predict. Kinda makes it difficult to match theory with the
time line, don'tcha think?
: > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
: >orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
: >idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
: >sun.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: How interesting. Do you have time to elucidate the nonsensical
: elements of your analogy?
Well, yes. Force is needed to needed alter the orientation of the
earth, just as force is needed to cause the earth to fall into the sun.
Excluding impacts, the only forces available are the sun and moon acting
on the equitorial bulge of the earth. The resulting precession &
nutation is well understood and predictable thank you.
: > 1867 ....*
: > 1887 .......*
: > 1897 ..........................*
: > 1907 ...........*
: > 1917 ............*
: > 1927 ...............................*
: > 1937 .......................................*
: > 1947 .......................................*
: > 1957 ......................................*
: > 1967 ................................*
: > 1977 .........................................*
: > 1987 .................................................*
: > 1997 .........................................................*
: > 1997 - Hottest year on record.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: And do you have at hand the surveys that record the fluctuations in
: attitude of Earth's axes relative to the sun that we may plot on your
: graph?
No. I don't have world leprechaun sighting frequency counts for these
years either.
I guess you don't know enough about the world to realize that
astronomers - who have spent considerable effort measuring the sky -
would have noticed a <random> change in the earths orientation.
(H.Selvitella) wrote:
: Looks like the contour indicated by the points you have charted could
: reflect a phase of negative wobble if the norm of inclination of
: Earth's polar axis to the sun were given as a straight line.
Ya, whatever. Go read a book.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Scott Nudds) writes:
: > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
: > orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
: > idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
: > sun.
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
: The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
: to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
: of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
: to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
: but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
: amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
: triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
: Large here means tens of degrees.
Chandler wobble - changes equatorial latitudes by no more than .5
seconds of arc. That is hardly going to change climate.
Perhaps Steinn believes that the earths crust has suddenly shifted in
the last couple hundred years and this is what has caused the observed
warming.
--
<---->
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> out to him in the past, but just like McCarthy, Sigurdsson et al he'll
> keep on repeating the propaganda until corrected forceably enough. It's
Hey Rich,
You want to clarify this point, or shall I just flame
you into crispy little bits for being a general asshole?
Again.
Steinn Sigurdsson
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> (Scott Nudds) writes:
> : > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
> : > orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
> : > idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
> : > sun.
> Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> : A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
> : The Earth does wobble, and there is stochastic component
> : to the wobble - the moon is thought to stabilise the amplitude
> : of the "wobble" quite significantly compared
> : to the what happens on the other terrestrial planets,
> : but there are two known mechanisms that could cause large
> : amplitude wobble of the Earth - both of which could be
> : triggered near randomly (on geological time scales).
> : Large here means tens of degrees.
> Chandler wobble - changes equatorial latitudes by no more than .5
> seconds of arc. That is hardly going to change climate.
Nope, but then it is not the only effect and certainly
not the one I was referring to. Try Laskars paper in
Nature (1993) or Widsoms papers from Science, same year.
> Perhaps Steinn believes that the earths crust has suddenly shifted in
> the last couple hundred years and this is what has caused the observed
> warming.
No I don't.
I just happen to know that in addition to the
periodic terms in the Earth's obliquity there are additional
forcing terms that produce a chaotic variation as well.
The amplitude of this is constrained by the presence of the
moon, a very nice result from 4 years ago by Laskar, followed
immediately from the realisation that Mars' obliquity is
large scale chaotic and can change quite suddenly, with
climate effects incurred.
I'd also refer you to the Kirschvink paper for another
mechanism by which you can have large amplitude pole shifts
even for the Earth, and apparently have had in the distant past
(with concomitant climate effects).
John McCarthy
Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
This exchange is additional evidence that whatever reasons Steinn
Sigurdsson might have for disliking Nudds, believing that Nudds is
smarter than he is is unlikely to be one of them. Nudds has given no
reason to believe that he is even capable of reading the papers that
Steinn has referred him to.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Steinn Sigurdsson
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson <ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> This exchange is additional evidence that whatever reasons Steinn
> Sigurdsson might have for disliking Nudds, believing that Nudds is
> smarter than he is is unlikely to be one of them. Nudds has given no
> reason to believe that he is even capable of reading the papers that
> Steinn has referred him to.
Interesting. Again, I make no claim to be smarter than Nudds,
though I have not seen any evidence that Nudds is particularly
smart as people go - certainly not comparable to a number of
my colleagues, or indeed some other posters on sci.env.
And, I reiterate, my initial reaction to people who are smarter
than me (and I know an interesting number) is overwhelmingly
respect and admiration for the person, NOT dislike or hatred
and I am at a total loss as to why Nudds thinks people might
hate those they think are smart(er).
Rich Puchalsky
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
Steinn has decided to illustrate his grasp of propaganda with a
gratuitous ad homenum. Ho hum.
If anyone cares to investigate Sigurdsson's previous posts, they will see
him repeating propaganda bits over and over, even after he's been corrected
on them repeatedly by people who know what they're doing. Case in point:
within the last week or too he tried the old "but what if global warming
corrects an impending ice age?" dodge on Tobis, and was promptly slapped
down for mixing up his time scales. He didn't mix them up; he's been told
about his time scale problem repeatedly. He simply keeps trying to mislead
people about the issue; I have no doubt that a few months someone will be
telling him about time scales once again. He's not ignorant of the problem;
he's not too stupid to understand the point; therefore he's a liar.
H.Selvitella
On 17 Dec 1997 00:50:55 -0500, af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Ah. The voice of reason. You have a copy of the master plan? You KNOW
>: what brought the ice age(s) upon us? You can predict the future?
>
> Those theories that I have seen proposed to explain past ice ages
>certainly don't contain alleged large scale <random> alterations in the
>orientation of the surface of the earth as you have suggested.
Ah. Those you have seen. Good enough though to scream the sky is
falling?
> You know... Have you ever thought that random events are somewhat
>difficult to predict. Kinda makes it difficult to match theory with the
>time line, don'tcha think?
You know! You've got something there.
>: > The implication that the world could "wobble" randomly into some
>: >orientation that change the climate, is nonsense. Very much like the
>: >idea sponsored by some creationists that the earth could fall into the
>: >sun.
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: How interesting. Do you have time to elucidate the nonsensical
>: elements of your analogy?
>
> Well, yes. Force is needed to needed alter the orientation of the
>earth, just as force is needed to cause the earth to fall into the sun.
>Excluding impacts, the only forces available are the sun and moon acting
>on the equitorial bulge of the earth. The resulting precession &
>nutation is well understood and predictable thank you.
Having admitted that your analogy contains nonsensical elements...you
state that force is needed...
that no force has been observed or predicted and that therefore we can
dismiss etc..
What effect has the re-distribution of weight on a spinning object--an
asymmetrical spinning object? Say..evaporation of water here, a deluge
there.
Or the shifting of tectonic plates, say, from east to west or north to
south? Could such phenomena disturb the balance of the spinner?
>: > 1867 ....*
>: > 1887 .......*
>: > 1897 ..........................*
>: > 1907 ...........*
>: > 1917 ............*
>: > 1927 ...............................*
>: > 1937 .......................................*
>: > 1947 .......................................*
>: > 1957 ......................................*
>: > 1967 ................................*
>: > 1977 .........................................*
>: > 1987 .................................................*
>: > 1997 .........................................................*
>: > 1997 - Hottest year on record.
>
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: And do you have at hand the surveys that record the fluctuations in
>: attitude of Earth's axes relative to the sun that we may plot on your
>: graph?
>
> No. I don't have world leprechaun sighting frequency counts for these
>years either.
> I guess you don't know enough about the world to realize that
>astronomers - who have spent considerable effort measuring the sky -
>would have noticed a <random> change in the earths orientation.
I sense that you are rather low on the scientific food chain and would
probably have to settle for published data.
>(H.Selvitella) wrote:
>: Looks like the contour indicated by the points you have charted could
>: reflect a phase of negative wobble if the norm of inclination of
>: Earth's polar axis to the sun were given as a straight line.
>
> Ya, whatever. Go read a book.
I guess one denial is as good as another.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:19:41 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>
>Having admitted that your analogy contains nonsensical elements...you
>state that force is needed...
>
>that no force has been observed or predicted and that therefore we can
>dismiss etc..
>
>What effect has the re-distribution of weight on a spinning object--an
>asymmetrical spinning object? Say..evaporation of water here, a deluge
>there.
>
>Or the shifting of tectonic plates, say, from east to west or north to
>south? Could such phenomena disturb the balance of the spinner?
>
Yeah. And what about that recent confirmation of Einstein's theory
that spinning mass causes perturbations, a dragging, in the
surrounding space-time? It causes the enveloping space-time itself to
wobble, as a top does.
Magnetic fields have sometimes undergone huge flips, and so I figure
is we all run over to Maine at the same time and jump up and down we
might be able to make something flip bass-ackwards. It's worth a try.
or - we might try to get the CO2 level in the air up to historically
unprecedented levels and see what the hell that will do.
Steinn Sigurdsson
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> : > out to him in the past, but just like McCarthy, Sigurdsson et al he'll
> : > keep on repeating the propaganda until corrected forceably enough. It's
> : Hey Rich,
> : You want to clarify this point, or shall I just flame
> : you into crispy little bits for being a general asshole?
> : Again.
> Steinn has decided to illustrate his grasp of propaganda with a
> gratuitous ad homenum. Ho hum.
No, I decided that it had been long enough since you
last proved that you were a malicious incompetent little idiot
that it was prudent to allow myself the indulegence of
actively flaming you when you decided to drop a completely
irrelevant ad hominem into an unrelated thread.
> If anyone cares to investigate Sigurdsson's previous posts, they will see
> him repeating propaganda bits over and over, even after he's been corrected
If anyone cares to investigate my previous posts they might
realise that while I frequently disagree with Puchalsky,
I have never used "propaganda" in any sense of the word.
Puchalsky's use of the phrase is due to his inability to
sustain an intelligent argument when he has his assumptions
questioned or his facts challenged, combined with his facile
belief that "dispute" is synonymous with "refute".
Puchalsky seems to be under the misapprehension that if
he contradicts someone in public this constitutes a correction,
in the apparent belief that everyone automatically takes his
assertions as gospel. Thus when he disagrees with me and
says so, he seems to think this is adequate as a "refutation"
or "correction" and that I do not have the option to continue
to disagree with him.
As with far too many other posters, Puchalsky likes to resort
to speculation as to ulterior motives for people who disagree with
him and refuse to be convinced by his less than stunning debating
ability. Usually he simply dismisses people as either being in
pay of some mysterious external power, or that they are posting
from pure ideological motivation. Since he knows I am not paid
by anyone to disagree with him, and that I am not ideologically
committed to do so either, he is at a loss to understand how
I could possibly disagree with him and is reduced to ad hominem
attacks, usually as asides in unrelated threads, possibly in the
hope I won't see them and call him on the issue.
> on them repeatedly by people who know what they're doing. Case in point:
> within the last week or too he tried the old "but what if global warming
> corrects an impending ice age?" dodge on Tobis, and was promptly slapped
> down for mixing up his time scales. He didn't mix them up; he's been told
Case in point - during a rather civilised discussion on how to weigh
low probability high cost/benefit scenarios, I noted
as a very low probability scenario,
that anthropic warming might have averted a "permanent ice age"
being triggered as a followon from the last "little ice age",
I then noted that over a long time scale this would be a very
large averted cost, ie a low probabbility, high benefit scenario,
and noted that such scenarios are not weighted in the
low prob-high cost sum Tobis was proceeding.
The only place I was "slapped down" for this was in
Puchalsky's fevered imagination. Nor do I recally Puchalsky
actually posting anything in that thread, fortunately, as threads
in which he participates tend to decline rapidly into stupid and
vicious name calling.
> about his time scale problem repeatedly. He simply keeps trying to mislead
> people about the issue; I have no doubt that a few months someone will be
> telling him about time scales once again. He's not ignorant of the problem;
> he's not too stupid to understand the point; therefore he's a liar.
This is typical of the sort of offensively sloppy arguments that
Puchalsky puts about - it is almost as if he actively tries to
alienate people so that they will not agree with him.
I am not ignorant of the issue of time scales, I am glad Puchalsky
thinks I am not too stupid to understand the point, I disagree
with Puchalsky as to whether the issue of time scales obviates
my argument, in spite of the fact that some issue are important
on long time scales, and others on shorter time scales, and some
on both long and short time scales, my weighing of how relevant
they are in different arguments differs from Puchalsky's (who seems
mostly interested in proving that issues he'd rather not thingk
about can be ignored so that he won't have to reconsider his
position). The fact that I _disagree_ with Puchalsky as to how
the length of different time scales affects the argument does not
make me a liar - it just means I disagree with Puchalsky.
I am getting really sick of the sheer stupidity of arguments from
Puchalsky and some others like him. He and they seem incapable of
actual reasoning and feel that any statement that vaguely says
something different from what they disagree with consitutes
correction or refutation. This shows ignorance of logic, science
and any trace of capability to think beyond the parrotting of
spoon fed arguments.
Puchalsky, you are narrow minded, mean and a pathetic debater.
You really should try to grow up to the point where you can
tolerate the concept of honest disagreement and differences
of opinion, try to reduce your paranoia levels a little
and learn that in a democracy the vote can sometimes go against
you, even when you are really convinced that you are right.
Michael Tobis
Steinn Sigurdsson (ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: If anyone cares to investigate my previous posts they might
: realise that while I frequently disagree with Puchalsky,
: I have never used "propaganda" in any sense of the word.
While I regret the endless flame war between these two, I
feel compelled to support Sigurdsson on this point. I see
no reason for Puchalsky to have injected Sigurdsson's name
into this particular discussion, and no excuse whatsoever
for the blistering attack.
: > on them repeatedly by people who know what they're doing. Case in point:
: > within the last week or too he tried the old "but what if global warming
: > corrects an impending ice age?" dodge on Tobis, and was promptly slapped
: > down for mixing up his time scales.
Actually, my "slap" was less convincing than I would like. It is my opinion
that Sigurdsson asks precisely the right questions about climate change -
He agrees with me, and against prominent political and scientific opinion(*),
that to the order required for geopolitical process the physical climatology
issues are effectively settled, and that the focus should shift to costs
and benefits. While we disagree on those questions, we do so politely and
with mutual respect. This is precisely where intelligent attention should
be focussed on this question - the "so what" issue. This includes not
only biogeochemistry, glaciology and sea-level questions but also economics,
sociology, and ecological issues.
I think a strong case can be made that the large threat Sigurdsson proposes
was avoided is due much smaller weight than threats of equal magnitude
that are made more likely in unconstrained emissions scenarios. My "time
scale" comment was a crude indicator of how I would frame such an argument.
It certainly didn't end the discussion and I didn't expect it to or even
intend it to.
Sigurdsson's point is, remarkably, in Puchalsky's favor rather than my own
in some sense, since Puchalsky constantly argues against formal weighting
of costs and benefits. By slipping in finite probablilities, however small,
of effectively infinite costs, Sigurdsson is actually making a case in
support of Puchalsky's position! I would much prefer that Puchalsky take
note of the logical connection there and make a sensible argument than
to pointlessly cast aspersions.
If my opinion as a character witness carries any weight with Puchalsky
I assert without hesitation that Sigurdsson has been utterly civilized
and a model of honest consideration in any disagreements I have had with him.
Both of these gentlemen have an unfortunate tendency to carry a grudge, alas.
This does none of us any good.
mt