It appears that weather goes through alternating 20 to 30 year cycles of warming and cooling, driven by the "Pacific Decadal Oscillation". The 1970's marked the end of a "cool phase" where conditions got progressively colder. The reverse was true during the 1990's, capped by the "Super El Nino" that featured the famous January 1998 Quebec-Ontario-Upstate New York ice storm.

Other articles on this site review the pernicious role of Maurice Strong, Paul Dsmairis, and Jean Chretien in this scam. So, this is all cycles, but liberals/science lobby/MSM would have you believe otherwise. Article below:
===============================================

Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Apr 14, 2005; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:9

The Alarmists Never Stop

John Stossel says climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate global warming

John Stossel Mr. Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ “20/20.” ©2005 by JFS Productions Inc.

*snip*

Thirty years ago this month, Newsweek reported: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.” The headline? “The Cooling World.”That’s right: Just 30 years ago, scaremongers were telling us about global cooling. The alarmists never stop. Maybe the key issue isn’t science. Maybe they just want us to be “concerned.”

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: Left Wing Zealot ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Wing Zealot:
This article highlights two crucial issues:

The financial incentives for scientists to be alarmist about climate change;

---

I'm going to be alarmist about something else. You've reproduced the entire article in violation of copyright.

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:

I'm going to be alarmist about something else. You've reproduced the entire article in violation of copyright.

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]

---

Let's put it this way: if global warming is for real (right know, I think it is), and if we don't do something about it, the consequences might be disastrous in the long run. If global warming isn't for real and we do something about it thinking that it is happening, well, in a few decades we'll just go "duh", but not much else will happen.

I think we should err on the side of caution. We'll need to use our resources more efficiently anyway, global warming or no global warming...

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

And somewhere in there he admits global warming is happening, he just figures we shouldn't get the idea that it's a problem or anything.

And finally, it appears that he gets his information from Crichton. I hate to break it to you, but Crichton is a science fiction writer. A mediocre one. His job is to say plausible-sounding but provocative things so that people will buy his books. His job is not to do solid research. I'm far more willing to believe thousands of people whose jobs are to do solid research than to believe one guy whose job is to be flamboyant, listening to one other guy whose job is to be flamboyant.

quote:

---

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces...

...I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press...

---

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

...In view of this, a number of Calgary APEGGA members, mostly earth scientists, have formed an organization under the Alberta Societies Act, named Friends of Science, to bring alternative science views to the attention of politicians, the media and the public...

---

Link to "The Pegg" Reader's Forum

The reason I am concerned about this bunch is that they have testified on their anti-Kyoto views before the Commons environment committee; and in March 2005, they and the University of Calgary produced a video criticizing the science of climate change.

It often happens thus, doesn't it? Scientists publish something which is full of cautions and warnings that more information is needed, more research should be done, firm conclusions cannot yet be reached, etc. But what comes thru in the popular press is "Scientists say (whatever)", as if it's set in stone and a fully-established, unquestionable fact. And it's the popular-press version that becomes established as myth. Like the Newsweek article in the first post.

The "fraud" is that some people are using whatever means necessary to put profits ahead of the survival of humans at worst, and the deaths of millions of individuals at best.

quote:

---

While some "global-warming skeptics receive generous funding from industry lobbyists and energy interests" it's nowhere near as "generous" as what the scare-mongers collect...

---

the hugely complex trading system the fed's/(globalists) want to create is confusing...arcane science and useless regulation to achieve nothing

Gir Draxon--

100% agree...something needs to be done to combat smog and mercury (like lead in 70's)....the system the fed's want to implement is just plain moronic

No Yards---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
Brazil went from a jungle to a agricultural powerhouse the last few decades...forest fires are thought to add greatly to CO2 concentration.

---

So, wait a minute . . . now you're saying climate change *is* being caused by humans adding to the concentration of CO2?
Good, we're getting somewhere. Now here's a hint: Climatologists aren't idiots. Their sophisticated computer models include lots o' factors when it comes to sources of CO2 (and indeed other greenhouse gases), and that would be one of them.

Meanwhile, it's true that the Kyoto treaty includes rather too much scope for weaseling. But when you consider that the outfits who successfully fought for that weaseling are the very same ones who now want to denounce Kyoto because it's ineffective I'd say that's the outside of enough.
The trajectory's pretty obvious. I'm a wealthy vested interest, say involved in selling fossil fuels, and changing anything to deal with global warming would hurt my profits, or at a minimum represent change, which I fear, and worse yet change whose origins are grassroots democratic in nature, which I fear above all. So what do I do?

-I claim global warming doesn't exist.
When that doesn't work and there's a move to get a treaty to do something about it,
-I denounce the treaty and try to block it
When that doesn't work
-I fight to water it down
-I try to stop countries from actually taking action based on it.
And what arguments do I use? Whatever's available, of course, generally
-Back to claiming global warming doesn't exist
-It's way too inconvenient to try to deal with it
-Even if it exists, like toxic sludge it's probably good for us
-Finally, and most ironically, the treaty's useless because it's watered down!

I know most of you are saying why didn't I leave it over there in that other thread? Non! I thought it important that we see what has been developing in perspective with science, that we could look at this globe in a "new way" with "new science" that few know about.

It takes you from looking at the world with straight edges and rulers ( descriptions of a "field" by the Romans moved to a third dimension) into the understanding that change is happening with the way the world exists on it's own structure. That we are able to read this. Climate is one of these ways.

So spacetime has given us some comprehension about the dynamics on earth/sun that we had not seen before, and like John Glenn, interestly enough, to see this marble that is so round? Well it's not really that round Sorry to burst your bubbles

So it's a perspective that would dictate how you would engage the planet, and what can transpire with our engaging the whole of it. This new view of John Glenn's, as he looked at this magnificent view for the first time, hanging out there in space, after all the academics shared, was life changing for him?

Do we need such transcendance to take seriously the arguement that must ensue from well educated people to once and for all ask, "why America do you not sign Kyoto?"

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

Edited: I see you've added stuff but frankly it seems pretty fuzzy and unclear to me.

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Edited: I see you've added stuff but frankly it seems pretty fuzzy and unclear to me.

---

If you follow link "State of Fear", hopefully the story unfolds properly. I woud like to have th epost cut down myself without it fallen under the auspiceof the moderator and having aquick deletion. So hopefully I am granted this opportuity to narrow it down if this is requested.

Already done.

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
So, what are you trying to say? That environmentalism = terrorism? That concern about pollution is unnecessary fear? Don't be oblique. Forget the silly hints; I have no patience with them. Come out and say exactly what's on your mind.

---

No!No!

That our ignorance should not motivate us to make irrational decisions without having the proper information and blanket policing our view of the Kyoto Accord. Blanket policies on people Cougyr like others who are introdued to science, who understand well that what I am saying is not without merrit. I am following the institutions of science.

It would mean that scientists duke it out to the last man standing. Brain(statistics), not Braun (miracle workers).

But until then, we are smarter to see above this dialogue, to see that the planet is being seen in a new light. Seen with Climate perspective that has a basis to it. This education, would be most fruitful to moving societal perspective up to current trends in science.

Crichton made use of the 911 scenario and it's effect used in the Envirmentalistic movement to encourage faulty acceptance of data with people that knew how to manipulate the weather(Osama moved the American society?).

It's fictional, but does it's job well in educating the idea behind American policy on not having signed the Kyoto accord? The American people will not be coerced ? Imagine the tuff stance, "if you are not with us you are against us," in contrast too, "what they wil not be forced to do." Americanism has a individualistic perspective(that's what entities do that are created, that is shared parts of society with tuff people?

You see

Model apprehension in this case serves to point out some things for consideration here. A model is only good if it can predict. In Crichton's own way he was able to accomplish something that verged on the incredible. He predicted the tsunami? He predicted the beetle kill? Argue till your blue in the face is this true or not? If not so this leaves you with a conclusion?

This to me does not relegate Crichton to a so-so perspective on science. That he did not lack the artist flare, to hide his information in what model can do to raise our perspectives on how we view thngs in society? He knew very well how comparative fear could be evoked, using other events to move the mind to consider, "the ability to control the weather?"

How absurd? That was the first clue, that he was writng abuot a American position, even if it was contained in a story.

Is this a good summary?

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

Cougyr, as far as I know, nobody has managed to quite figure out what's on Forum Observer's mind...

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
[QBSheesh. If he's gonna post that kind of stuff here, he could at least share his drugs with the rest of us.[/QB]

---

the phrase might be " greed knows no bounds"... there are many trickster training/detecting stories and fables... all cultures-

or when in doubt "buy both sides" or
"water runs up hill towards money"

When I first looked at Real climate- I had followed a link from a MIT article on "State of Fear"

In the following article that I found from a Google.... the SOF author referes to DDT as- not a problem- read and see what you think-

Also, look at CDC project in UK The industries who see loss from global warming will have interest in sustainability ... they will not be interested in the denial... or the big roll of the dice

www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php

Remarks to the
Commonwealth Club

By Michael Crichton

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Can you spin second hand smoke into a health benifit?

---

for excercise I prefer walkin in a smoke free environment when can find one

thanks for the blog link

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
Now how's that for clarity and concision, eh?

Cougyr, as far as I know, nobody has managed to quite figure out what's on Forum Observer's mind...

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

---

....with Beluga and Cougyr you three take the cake

For people who are supposed to be educated you three pompous ***es probably didn't even read the book I relayed.

Windsphere rose to the occasion and indrecting a comment to contrarion, about DDT provided a rich comentary for a good debunker who could qualify Rufus's comment about Michael Crichton?

But no, you think you can do better and add your illsutrous comments about myth and all, and some how, what I said would not have lead to further inquiry about facts?

Here's where you should have stepped up to the plate and found facts contrary to Michael Crictons statement so you could have verified Rufus's comments? But no I think I'll bash forumm observer because you don't quite know what he's getting too.

It's obvious you lack the education even though you like to think you have a education.

Now be a good boy and get the facts about DDT's will ya

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

As I believe I've said in the past, I'd love to engage with you on this, but frankly I find your writings meander so much that I can't unravel where one thought ends and the next begins. Frequently you seem to be trying to deliver two separate and unconnected thoughts in a single sentence. While spelling and grammar flames are cheap shots, I think the majority of participants in this thread simply can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say. Given that, can you really blame them for not wasting their time trying to engage with you?

To take an example from State of Fear (capitalization is my attempt at editing for comprehensibility):

quote:

---

But let me take this one step further, in that we consider both these frames, in context of each other and ask the connection in lagrangian way.

---

quote:

---

How would we see gravitational points of consideration related to each other?

---

quote:

---

Would this help those less inclined to understand the variations in perspective of gravity to comprehend the value Einstein lead us through, to take us to a much more dynamical view of the cosmos?

---

What do you others think, better?

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forum observer:

For people who are supposed to be educated you three pompous ***es probably didn't even read the book I relayed.

---

You finally wrote a phrase I could understand!

quote:

---

Originally posted by forum observer:

Windsphere rose to the occasion and indrecting a comment to contrarion, about DDT provided a rich comentary for a good debunker who could qualify Rufus's comment about Michael Crichton?

But no, you think you can do better and add your illsutrous comments about myth and all, and some how, what I said would not have lead to further inquiry about facts?

Here's where you should have stepped up to the plate and found facts contrary to Michael Crictons statement so you could have verified Rufus's comments? But no I think I'll bash forumm observer because you don't quite know what he's getting too.

It's obvious you lack the education even though you like to think you have a education.

Now be a good boy and get the facts about DDT's will ya

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

---

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

His digression on DDT is a bit of a red herring: DDT wasn't banned because it was carcinogenic IIRC, it was banned because it was building up to toxic levels in various wild animal species and some of those were threatened with extinction. Boo, hiss, or rather, now who's coming up with quasi-religious tenets of faith?.

Specifically:

quote:

---

DDT is very highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species. Reported 96-hour LC50s in various aquatic invertebrates (e.g., stoneflies, midges, crayfish, sow bugs) range from 0.18 ug/L to 7.0 ug/L, and 48-hour LC50s are 4.7 ug/L for daphnids and 15 ug/L for sea shrimp (13). Other reported 96-hour LC50s for various aquatic invertebrate species are from 1.8 ug/L to 54 ug/L (12). Early developmental stages are more susceptible than adults to DDT's effects (12). The reversibility of some effects, as well as the development of some resistance, may be possible in some aquatic invertebrates (13).

DDT is very highly toxic to fish species as well. Reported 96-hour LC50s are less than 10 ug/L in coho salmon (4.0 ug/L), rainbow trout (8.7 ug/L), northern pike (2.7 ug/L), black bullhead (4.8 ug/L), bluegill sunfish (8.6 ug/L), largemouth bass (1.5 ug/L), and walleye (2.9 ug/L) (13). The reported 96-hour LC50s in fathead minnow and channel catfish are 21.5 ug/L and 12.2 ug/L respectively (13). Other reported 96-hour LC50s in largemouth bass and guppy were 1.5 ug/L and 56 ug/L respectively (12). Observed toxicity in coho and chinook salmon was greater in smaller fish than in larger (12). It is reported that DDT levels of 1 ng/L in Lake Michigan were sufficient to affect the hatching of coho salmon eggs (14). DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species and larval stages are probably more susceptible than adults (11, 12).

In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure. This occurs mainly through uptake from sediment and water into aquatic flora and fauna, and also fish (12). Fish uptake of DDT from the water will be size-dependent with smaller fish taking up relatively more than larger fish (12). A half- time for elimination of DDT from rainbow trout was estimated to be 160 days (12).

The reported bioconcentration factor for DDT is 1,000 to 1,000,000 in various aquatic species (15), and bioaccumulation may occur in some species at very low environmental concentrations (13). Bioaccumulation may also result in exposure to species which prey on fish or other aquatic organisms (e.g., birds of prey).

---

NB: bioconcentration factors of 1K to 1M in fish means that birds eating the fish will be getting a dose high enough to be toxic. Possibly ditto humans. It's not the carcinogenic effects, it's the teratogenic and chronic toxicity effects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reverend Blair:
Deltoid is a pretty good blog with plenty of links for debunking the debunkers. I like the Global Warming Sceptic Bingo thing.

---

Good for you for bringing the informatioon forward. It is statistical information that will support the claims of either Rufus's or even yourself. Windsphere will contiue to spin the flavour of the story with such incredubility to th eway we have always percived things.

So you visited the link on State of Fear. Keep going

Scientists themselves have become polarized around a way of thinking for and against Kyoto?

Even for its continued debate I provide what may have motivated any country to adopt or its hesitancy? See the cost rising on the agenda, in terms of financial adherance, to say, what has been the result of following Kyoto? Have emissions been reduced? Has the financial obligation offset by introduing alternate energy standards for removing those emissions?

Top theoreticains are working in very credible fields and some fields that are less then adequate in delivering a comprehensive blow to some theory of everything. Engaging, has changed the ways we had always understood the physics.

Perception had to be moved forward once we seen the future of our science move into space. I may talk about the weak field measure of earth gravity and present GRACE, to show how advanced our thinking has become in how we look at the earth.

Windsphere brings in a link "powers of ten" and how we percieve the microsopic look at a cosmological view on reality? Some of the most advance scientists having learn what reductionism has done, have turned their views to asrtophysics for consideration of how we had always viewed cosmology with GR. But now, we see where energy allows us to think differently and see differently.

As to my writing I had more then once asked for help. I am still learning to write in a very good way.

Meandering is a very good word because it makes me think of a rug, and all the intricaies that go into the design. Walking on it would be a good(model consumption) thing had we understood the design is part of some new interlocking pattern maybe Penrose produced in his tilings? So I say this, to encourages you to look at penrose's tilings

How would you view what you highlight in quote if you were to understand the relationship between earth and the sun and various points in between us?

I'd have to take you through the history of geometers and point you to Gauss's work or Riemanns and tell you how they were seeing, and how they helped Einstein? I'll just point you to Inverse Square law,and say that part of the developement of this new vision is to see powers of ten in everything that we do when we look at the cosmo, our make up as human beings

Thanks for challenging my position

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
Also, I think that his line "on the inevitability of carbon dioxide increases" is true. But it is true in a trivial and misguiding way.

---

quote:

---

Stossel's a libertarian on the right wing lunatic fringe. Don't listen to anything those nutter's have to say.

---

Exactly. Stossel does this segment on ABC's "20/20" "news magazine" programme called "Give Me a Break" where he supposedly "takes on" the "liberal establishment" view in the media on a variety of issues.

Didn't see this one, but I've seen other crap he's done so know what to expect.

"Global Warming" as I understand is a bit of a misnomer. We really should be talking about "climate change" where the weather starts getting really weird as a result of the earth's average temperature rising.

The majority of scientists who aren't on the payroll of corporate elites agree that climate change is a reality.

The Kyoto Protocol is just a bare beginning at rolling back some of the damage that humans have done to the planet.

And what if the majority of the world's scientists are wrong? What are the consequences? We get a cleaner, healthier and more energy efficient planet!

And if they are right but we decide to ignore them and listen to the John Stossel's of this world then we have an environmental catastrophe on our hands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

I'm not so sure. I'm assuming here that he says something along the lines of, volcanoes etc. are going to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, and a climax ecosystem can only put so much of it into solid form. Ergo, atmospheric CO2 will increase.
But this ignores that carbon can also get sequestered back into the earth on a very long-term basis. Lots of life is in the ocean, and much of that eventually drops to the ocean bottom, there to be silted over and in many cases eventually shoved into subduction zones. Gone forever.
Where does he think all those fossil fuels came from, anyway? CO2 taken out of the atmosphere long-term, until we came along.

---

Yeah, now that you made me think of it, he might have meant it in that sense. I mean, if he's one of those that totally denies human input into the raising of carbon dioxide levels, that's the kind of thing he would say... I interpreted it in the sense that we have been dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that we're going to keep doing it for a while since it is impossible to just stop consuming fossil fuels.

But I do believe that your interpretation is the correct one.

[ 19 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Thanks for challenging my position

---

The writer of State of Fear (is that you?) seems to me to be placing too much emphasis on coordinate systems (again, assuming I've understood through the fog of misuse of terms). To say that "how we might look at these issues if we move our consideration from the normals views of measure stick and straight lines, to variations we have demonstrated on earth(hills and valleys).", seems to me to misrepresent how people both perceive the Earth and how they measure it. A coordinate system is just that, not a reified all-encompassing world-view, and scientists concerned with measurement regularly move between coordinate systems to use those that best suit the problem at hand.

It seems to me you're placing too much emphasis on visual semantics (ie, peculiarities of data display), and using this to argue against a position that doesn't really exist (that the Earth is seen by many as being made up of straight lines).

quote:

---

But then, most of anthropology suffers from that. It has always been a pseudo science with a wannabe complex.

---

[ 19 April 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]

I type and write at a snails pace....

Look at the PERC link,it might have been MC telling people what they want to hear....i don't know him- or read him- but O cough in a room full of smoke and get sick-

Spin is messing with the info on so many levels... people become disinterested because they are fearful of being miss informed

google harvard and Methyl Mercury....even cost benifit $'s are braided, if the answer is pre determined what research can be collected and used... in divergent fields?

we need to do what we do know (how/what)- to do to create more balance and health... the different energy systems have existing ability for filtration/remediation and more creative blends to build profit (not just $) out of waste and ..."don't be mean, keep it clean" balance/integrity in the different economic systems if you mess it up- who should clean it up- can you clean it up and in a creative way increase health and not waste so much- resourcefullness, the most with the least...

(out of time to fix this- hope it is OK)

FO? English is my first language and text is not... I would like help writting too-

I always loved the Ames X10
the periodic table at X10 and temps and speeds...
I wish I understood more science- thanks for adding to what i do know

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
So what does anthropology wannabe?

---

. . . to be a science. Anthropologists want to be taken seriously even though most of their stuff is unproveable.

Thanks for anytime then.

To say that "how we might look at these issues if we move our consideration from the normals views of measure stick and straight lines, to variations we have demonstrated on earth(hills and valleys).", seems to me to misrepresent how people both perceive the Earth and how they measure it. A coordinate system is just that, not a reified all-encompassing world-view, and scientists concerned with measurement regularly move between coordinate systems to use those that best suit the problem at hand.

I understand this and no english is my first.

aroused:It seems to me you're placing too much emphasis on visual semantics (ie, peculiarities of data display), and using this to argue against a position that doesn't really exist (that the Earth is seen by many as being made up of straight lines).

We could have gone back and talked about how a pretty girl, how time passes, but that would entail going back to Einstein and thinking about this issue of spacetime and it's applicable features. So we are at a new stage in our applications. This is self-explanattory.

You have to understand that the views in historical reference only allows us to put forward clearer pictures as our science and applications develope. This is why I encourage scientific updating in terms of how people look at the issue of Climate.

I spell it out clrearly that I am new to this debate, and that such talks have to have society up to speed on how climatic issues are currently being gauged.

Now focus on the picture, as it encases all that we know, and in this way, visual semantics hold much information.

"If a picture can paint a thousand words then why can't I paint you," is a popular line from a song. A complete model will give you this kind of picture and no half-***ed statements can ever fill this requirement, pointing to full comprehension.

That's why visual implemetation are very important to vast tracks of information. This seals in mind the work that is to be accomplished.

Okay now. We have this model(picture) how will it help us, giving the information that I have linked too, see climate issues in the truer light? What do you think?

How's my english here?

[ 19 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

I always loved the Ames X10
the periodic table at X10 and temps and speeds...
I wish I understood more science- thanks for adding to what i do know

That's the thing about packing one's head with so much information. Imagine then, when the unrelated neurons start firing and you have this humugus transferance of information into a single thought? Can that happen?

You exercise the brain I think and make it more pliable and elastic? You sense the rythymns in GR or the possible views of the quantum nature and, "wow," you have this new view the universe?

You learn to see that nature has these number at the basis of reaity? Some don't like this romantic view becuase discrete things make mor esense. After all, this is the way reality is for them.

Manjul Bhargava: An Artist of Music and Math

That's what models do. They provide for the next step in our assessments.

Your english is not so bad.

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

great water imagery- I have 2 projects with students 3rd and 7th looking at audubon, aquifers and resoucefullness- they will love the water map and Grace- what about lakes? India? China? We are making fish with brain food about water....

"the frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives" native american

Helvarg- "Blue Vision", was talking about the oceans carbon buffering being huge- much larger than the rain forrest-

Sundial- Sundance

quote:

---

Good list, Rufus, but you left out - focus on side issues; claim that we MUST fix smog and other pollutants BEFORE we can worry about greenhouse gases, even though in the past we fought every attempt to deal with other air pollutants.

---

Skookums! I agree whole-heartedly, it's a great list, Rufus--and good on Contrarian for pointing out a key confusion tactics by these corporate flunkies who push this junk science.

The fact is cleaning up smog and other pollutants is a key factor in addressing greenhouse gas emissions since that is largely what smog is.

As to global warming, I laugh when these twerps try to deny it in one sentence, then try to dismiss the concerns over it by saying it happens all the time so why worry. That in itself proves that Big Oil is just pushing junk science.

I'm certainly no expert. But I have read that in fact global warming and cooling and other forms of climate change are part of our planet just doing its business the way it always has. We have had ice ages before, and no doubt we will have them again.

My support for the Kyoto protocols is based on two observations:

First, even if global climate change happens naturally, I don't see why we should be pushing it one way or another by tossing bunch of crap into the atmosphere that we already factually know is bad for us anyway, regardless of their impact on global climate change.

Second, Kyoto protocols make sense to me, not because of what might, or could, or will likely happen in the next 20, 50, 100 or 500 years, but on what's already happened and what is happening now.

For example, when I drive to the Lower Mainland (here in BC) just on the final descent before Hope on a sunny weekday afternoon and notice a huge yellow/brown smear across the horizon just west of the Cascades, I see the need for those Kyoto protocols.

You don't need to be a climate or air quality expert to see that doesn't belong there and should be cleaned up. This is intensified when I read that the Lower Mainland smog problem is minimal compared with most other major cities in North American, especially in the US.

When Environment Canada releases studies showing BC's water quality is declining due to carbon compounds, consumed hydrocarbons and sulphuric products (all key parts of greenhouse gases) being blown away from urban industrial areas and dropped into watersheds everywhere, I see a need for those Kyoto protocols.

Acid Rain isn't a prediction. It's a practice with a long history and proven cause of all sorts of ill health--and it's related to greenhouse gases. That's why we need the Kyoto protocols.

The list goes on.

So I think the fight for Kyoto shouldn't be left to an academic shyte swap between our scientists vs. their scientists over what could or will or won't or might not happen down the road.

That's great. The children will be much smarter about these things then we are, given the models for consideration. For them it might seem like a nice cyclical nature that is being exemplified?

For us, a basis maybe, for how such emisssions might have interrupted this cycle. The data collected (from mean and time variable) would have shown variances. As you use the mean gravitational field and see the time variable, you gain perspective on time variation against the perfect backdrop of nature's way?

Emissions would interrupt this? You don't have to be scientist to figure this out, just payng attention and seeing in a way that most of earthlings never saw before.

Helvarg- "Blue Vision", was talking about the oceans carbon buffering being huge- much larger than the rain forrest-

I have always suspected some with a deeper vision of nature, and some who understood the primary principle of Thales of Miletus. Not just in the natures way around the globe, but also within the abilties of emotive designs, that can quickly motivated through our systems(mind is a powerful thing).

How Fear can motivate in a most destructive way? Better kowledge helps here in how we see? Makes us aware of what is happening in the forrest with that beetle kill? Is this one of the signs?

I had this dream many years ago and thought I might help by developing strong seedlings. There had to be a balance with those that take down the forrest, the workers who lived this life. I tried to compensate.

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

I built a big wind piece about light/wave lengths light-
food/growth photosynthesis-
light informantion-light
creative energy/activity- dance/sing/drum/quilt

it could pivot to drop too much wind

when I show students the slide of this dancing "prism" i mention that I would love to end world hunger and racism in one move-

one of them may some day figre a way to make people green.... and teach them to photosynthesise

then we talk about imagining all the things a material can be- not just what we call it

creativity and curiosity drive problem solving
so does "want to" belief in possibility and potential, and reference to 7 generations

the CO2 focus seems to benefit the current fossil fuel waste producers...if we're using 1990 as a benchmark...then carbon corps that were around at that time would seem to benefit from having actual emissions if they can eliminate from those levels.......in other words....past pollution pays for future public financial subsidies....lucky you if you were belching out toxic emissions 15 years ago..

paying farmers in Canada to keep literal dirt farms,...paying credits to non existent soviet industries from 15 years ago,...and awarding rich land owners (tree planting carbon benefit) money....all three options are what's going to happen with current focus on CO2

If it can't be said clearly, it is bunkum and balderdash.

[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
If it can't be said clearly, it is bunkum and balderdash.

---

[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: Cougyr ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
If it can't be said clearly, it is bunkum and balderdash.

---

A chorus?

Ye Gods, how did the postmodernists find this site? Psst - there is no site, you are imperializing your perceptions on me by posting, and signifying an incoherence based in smugness.

Take ownership of yaself and stop projecting ya's weakness on others.

Wasted enough time with you. If you can't understand it then it's obvious your short of intellect Pictures plus words should have done it. So for you three just pictures, since, your so smart Your comments for impact

Star war action figures? I forgot how young you are, and how you might not even know the three stooges. My apologies.

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

Forum Observer- do I have to have an image on a web site to put it into a message? I also could not connect to the music site....?

With GRACE have they created new maps to make visible the relationships of population and water (aquifers)?

Did anyone see a CNN progran - the Antidote to CC or GW, Solar...?

warm water...

"Following Hurricane Andrew, private insurance companies paid out $17 billion (out of $25 Billion) in storm damage. In the 1980's all US weather related claims totaled $17 billion. In the 1090's that figure jump to more than $60 billion. This is one reason the insurance industry has begun to break with big oil over the speed with which the world needs to transition from fossil fules to a new energy regime. During recent climate treaty meetings in Kyoto, Buenos Aires, and Bonn, a coaltion including Greenpeace, the insurance industry, and small island nations, emerged to counter the go-slow approach of fossil fule lobbyists and the OPEC nations......" David Helvargs, Blue Vision 2001

-------------

modern/post-modern.... not sure it it so simple or singular- many multicultural influences and materials science/manufacturing occured that was/is more flexible and dynamic over the last 150+ years

the following (trends/people) do not fit the form explained at the google site I checked- below

>Constructivist- Dada- Futurist, Color-Field-Jung, Hendrix, Fuller, Beuyes, Ghandi- I can't fit Jimmy Carter in the framework..........

people and concepts have more dimension, variety, complexity, and angles of perseption- like CC/GW, I learn more and it keeps changing-
quanitative without intuition/common sence- seems like - life without spirituality- a bit flat and disfunctionally predictable

many atempts at order become systems of convienience and diminish conceptual spheres of knowledge- interupting/limiting growth and overlap from common principals ..and it looks like we need all the growth in problem solving we can find

wanting to communicate and finding a way- pictures included- letting "form follows finance"
evolve back into "form follows function, finance included" economies of wellness- macro and micro

phytochemicals and seed banks-

http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html

Could you guys start your own thread somewhere else? I suggest you call it the "hot air and bad grammar" thread.

Please stop polluting other people's threads with your gibberish!

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsphere:

Forum Observer- do I have to have an image on a web site to put it into a message? I also could not connect to the music site....?

---

C,

Using internet explorer should allow you to play this. I am on a dial up computer so the complains I hear, require patience and with the following link the morons who are complaining just having been able to digest the complexity of the subject of climate.

Butterflies can cause hurricanes, according to the classical theory of chaos. But what happens when chaos encounters the quantum world?

Number theory is the type of math that describes the swirl in the head of a sunflower and the curve of a chambered nautilus. Bhargava says it's also hidden in the rhythms of classical Indian music, which is both mathematical and improvisational. He sees close links between his two loves -- both create beauty and elegance by weaving together seemingly unconnected ideas.

As part of a Morning Edition series exploring the intersection of art and science, NPR's Richard Harris reports on the beauty of mathematics, its ties to art -- and the man who straddles both worlds.

I gave one example of how the mean gravity field having been detrmined allows perspective to form around time variables fields. In this case water.

With GRACE have they created new maps to make visible the relationships of population and water (aquifers)?

Not that I know of.

By far, the most abundant and available source of fresh water is underground water supplies or wellsprings known as aquifers. Therefore, scientists and natural resource managers are very interested in tracking how these underground reservoirs of fresh water are changing with time.

C,

Contrarian, I tried to use the artic map- can you post it?

He posted in this other thread to help you and save you from association to me. It's okay.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

Listen if you winerrs don't have anything to say about climate quit your wining and quit disrupting the thread.

There is more science in what I offer then the fools that say there is no science. The gibberish you try to insight is gibbeerish and any chorus that you sing is bad manners of youth.

Now smarten up and post something about the Climate.

It will be locked up soon and we won't have to worry, but until then any who are trying hard beyond the true arguements of science, and quotes that support your views, please post them or be quiet.

Please spare us, let us relish in our simple thoughts and straightforward language. Leave us! Leave us, I beg you! We can't take it anymore.

We are not worthy!

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

Gerard Hooft had this to say.

No 'Quantum Computer' will ever be able to out perform a 'scaled up classical computer.'

Why did Gerard say this?

If climate was ever to transmit all it's components, then how could we see such effects as butterfly who flap their wings?

Past and future

With more computer power, scientists can also include more elements of the Earth's climate system, such as the oceans, the atmosphere, their chemistry and the carbon cycle.

This should make forecasts of future temperature rises more reliable. Keiko Takahashi, who works at the Earth Simulator Centre, says they have already carried out several experiments that look 50 years ahead.

Still, this is not adequate? Why?

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

The first televised weather report was on October 14, 1941 on WNBT in New York City.

The report was given by a cartoon character named "Wooly Lamb." The report began with the lamb looking through a telescope then singing a song about all kinds of weather. When the song was complete, the weather for the next day appeared written across the bottom of the screen.

It was sponsored by Botany's Wrinkle-Proof ties and lasted for seven years.

Source: The Complete Weather Resource - Forecasting and Climate.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
Egg west worse green!

---

hmmmmmmmmm......a political statement and your name is Sam? You relate Kyoto and the Green houses gases to Dr Suess's stories?

<....>You apply vagueness to indicate room for doubt? The thing is, this distance measure provides for a lot of uncertainty and we know that. Your not convinced.

Look at Clementine and the moon. The way they measured gravity there( the satelite lag)? The geological perspective gained from mapping the moon? The frames of reference are thus quite dynamical when you use this perspective to gain new insights developed from the work of Einstein.

Green Cheese?

The Clementine gravity experiment used measurements of perturbations in the motion of the spacecraft to infer the lunar gravity field

The complexity of measuring events in the cosmos, was to see information contained in what exists around us now. Using various locations they are trying to ascertain simultaneous correspondances in the signals from these cosmological locations, as a well as use the distance between these earth based locations.

Gravity for instance, varies with Time

In a complex world of uncertainty this is hard to do, so you look for the ways to see how the cosmic rays create the situations for particle production.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

it's cyclical process? your born, you live, you die, your born, you live you.....your born you......your born....

so you look for the origins of any number system that began, and how it was used to explain the natural world.

An example here would be using Pascal's triangle. If you "blanket" using resonances pertaining to all number deveopements, then we might understand the harmonies created? Topological movements?

In a euclidean world the developing geometries will lead somewhere, but how did you ever arrive from topological states to euclidean frames of reference? You had to understand the physics process.

So from space to earth, the earth, a final physical state. But you understand that it existed in other states as well? That's where you learn to use the physics.

You know well that the thread has almost reached it's end and that a decision is being made between locking it for the sake of the dial-upers like me, or having reach 100 or bust?

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
I've long wanted to prove, both logically and statistically, that all wumpering woomsters plave the trowner chakes.

---

I've long wanted  | that all wumpering 
to prove          | woomsters plave 
both logically    | the trowner chakes
and statistically | 

Clear and concise | then degrades 
            Mistrust

Clear and concise and then degrades into a seemingly example of masterfully disguising....?

Another child maybe?

It is ignorance that prevents further understanding and it is okay. Knowledge is lacked.

It is another thing to purposely mislead as Sokal did about hermeutic interpretations, to baffle the youngsters and gain their trust. Then take a vast majority of them down the tubes with the joke. Mistrust was accomplished. Like the little boy who cried wolf.

I can assure you this is no joke. So your example is bogus. Now it's time to step up to the plate.

Closer...closer...closer....fini.s.h

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

it's hermeneutic, by the way

that's good.... you probably looked it up too, which gives you one step closer to Sokal. You know what, I'd offer the link but because your a little snot brat, I'm not going to do that. If someone else is interested I will link it.

Contrarion, I refrained from commenting to you because you stay out of it, but since you responded it is only right that I say something to you.

The youngsters are parrots and you just reinforce it. I let enough people know where to go if they want to pursue it and look at further information. It's obvious you and surfosad know absolutely nothing about this science and there is no sense speaking to you about it. So kindly do not respond to my posts, or is it open season?

Ask if you don't understand something and quit applying a blanket policy over something you do not understand. Why do you comment? To feel part of the youth movement? I'd be more then willing to explain, but you don't want to hear that so your comments are pissing in wind

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

If one examines the cultural paradigm of context, one is faced with a choice: either reject postcapitalist discourse or conclude that sexuality is used to reinforce the status quo, given that culture is distinct from truth. The example of presemanticist desituationism which is a central theme of Gibson's All Tomorrow's Parties emerges again in Neuromancer. However, the subject is contextualised into a material postcapitalist theory that includes consciousness as a totality.

Lacan promotes the use of deconstructive capitalism to analyse sexual identity. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a postcapitalist discourse that includes narrativity as a reality.

Brophy[1] suggests that we have to choose between Marxism and Batailleist `powerful communication'. In a sense, an abundance of theories concerning a semantic totality exist. The primary theme of the works of Gibson is not, in fact, deappropriation, but predeappropriation. Thus, the neodialectic paradigm of consensus states that class, perhaps ironically, has objective value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by forum observer:
What you need a little more passion in them.

it's hermeneutic, by the way

that's good.... you probably looked it up too, which gives you one step closer to Sokal. You know what, I'd offer the link but because your a little snot brat, I'm not going to do that. If someone else is interested I will link it.

---

No, I actually read his damn book, and the famous hoax article is in its Appendix A. See, unlike certain people, I usually try to know a little bit about what I'm talking about before opening my big mouth.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]