Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:57:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] At present, biological processes are not having a significant effect on CO2 concentration. They do have a significant effect. In fact it is larger than the effect we are having. However at present our effect is all in one direction - up. 3. Our models of the atmosphere are increasingly accurate, as shown by weather prediction (as I said). Weather prediction isn't accurate beyond about a week, and most of that is due to satellite imagery telling the weather forecasters where the weather systems are, and what direction they are moving in. These models predict that increased CO2 concentration should have already increased average temperatures. This has been confirmed by actual measurements. True, but the models are also tweaked until they agree more or less with existing data, so this isn't really as impressive as it sounds. The models also predict that the problem will get worse in the future as the concentration increases. Hey, I can do that in my head, without a computer. But it's still only necessarily true if the whole process is bound by the constraints taken into consideration by the models, IOW if they haven't left out any effects (and it's 100% certain that they have). It is argued by skeptics that the models are not dependable. They aren't. That is not in evidence; they are working already. See above. It is argued that they cannot work because they are extremely complex, but (as I said) they are no more complex than models in other areas of science which are proven to work. We have been here before ;) 4. Skeptics argue that the models are not reliable because they describe phenomena on a large scale (a planetary scale). This is faulty reasoning. The scale of a phenomenon has no bearing on whether it is predictable or not, or whether it can be modeled or not. Correct. However the complexity of the phenomena upon which they are based does have a bearing. I think it's a safe bet that there are going to be a few surprises along the way. Equally complex models about large-scale phenomena in nature such as the behavior of stars and galaxies are reliable. I would argue that the number of different types of phenomena involved in astronomical models are less, and hence the complexity is less. Going down a similar number of orders of magnitude away from common experience, we find that models describing subatomic particles also work quite well. ...which is why they predict cold fusion. :^) There is simply no reason to think that models about the entire earth's atmosphere are somehow unreliable because the Earth is large. Agreed. 5. I reiterate that once the CO2 enters the atmosphere, the model of what happens next becomes relatively simple, and it is well tested and confirmed (unfortunately). ...but the point is, how long will it stay in the atmosphere. This can vary considerably, depending on how the biosphere reacts. To push the point a little further, consider that we are also part of the biosphere, and if we wipe ourselves out tomorrow, in a nuclear holocaust, then the CO2 levels may drop in a few years. Or perhaps a deadly pathogen will have the same effect. Of course in that case, there may not be anyone around to care, or there may be a few survivors. The point is, the future really isn't predictable. 6. Perhaps some enhanced biological process may arise that removes CO2: something like an unexpected plant bloom, or what Russ George is trying to with iron oxide in the ocean. However, we cannot count on this occurring. It would be foolhardy to do nothing and hope that some biological process comes along and rescues us, or that some beneficial feedback mechanism is already at work. Agreed. Even though the process is inherently unpredictable, we should act as though it were. (We should err on the side of caution). Obviously there will be some beneficial feedback and some plant blooms, but there is no evidence that a sufficiently large beneficial feedback mechanism exists. And there is some evidence that the opposite kind of feedback mechanism may arise which makes the problem much worse. - Jed There is evidence for at least one type of biological feedback that would be sufficiently large:- Ebola. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. Non sequitur Not at all, but I did not explain what I meant as clearly as Stephen A. Lawrence did: The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that The point of my posting these reports is that there is a dissident group of planetary scientists who question AGW. You won't hear their voices in the main stream media because it is controlled by the Oligarchy. Prager has attempted to remedy this, by providing them with a forum. As for media complicity, Horner mentioned My Weekly Reader (Scholastic Publications) and National Geographic. Which have continued to publish this fiction and feed the hysteria. Horner mentioned several instances of their doctoring the data and graphs in order to support their agenda. As for corporate complicity, Horner recounted his experiences with Enron which was counting on something like this. As for global cooling. The earth, and the rest of the planets were warming up, then we went into a period of solar quiescence, and (according to him) the planet started cooling. We just had a really cold long winter, OTHO, it seems that other areas are hotter than usual. Perhaps I'll hear the interview again and I'll take notes, or one of you can read his book. Albert Gore (of all people!) is masterminding them. Algore is a major player in this, but a mastermind he isn't. As for keeping secrets, we (conspiracy theorists) have known about the Oligarchy and the mechanisms which have allowed them to accomplish their evil ends. Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow was written 20 years ago, nothing significant has been added since then. It (our knowledge) hasn't made any difference. I don't don't have a high opinion of Algore. Leftists are smart enough, but they have an insanity which makes them unable to see the error of their ways. Specifically, they seem unable to overcome the effects of this insanity, even in the face of the fact that their ideas have never worked, and that they destroy the population's humanity. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
The author of this book is almost certainly a professional liar or deluded or - giving him the most benefit-of-the-doubt possible - he is seriously misled and is not capable of making a valid rational assessment of data and evidence in the face of the glaringly obvious. He uses cherry picked phases taken out of context, misleading logical fallacies and well established black propaganda techniques. Although people like this are definitely consciously using exactly the same tactics that the tobacco industry once used (to try and avoid liability for the fact that they were knowingly killing their customers) they misrepresent (they lie about) their position as being one of scepticism. It is not. They are impervious to information that conflicts with their position (most of it!) and they deliberately select and twist and misrepresent that small portion that is ambiguous. This is nothing like climate change scepticism, this is out and out denial and lying. Author Chris Horner: http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chris_Horner Horner's basic modus operandi is functionally identical to Rush Limbaugh's pernicious drivel. Here is a sample Limbaugh quote Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming. This is a an example of a Big Lie (actually a colossally gigantic lie) taken straight from the 101 handbook of deception and propaganda as used by Goebbels. The Heartland institute deniers conference has just taken place where these Big Lies were ten a penny and objective truth and analysis were conspicuous by their absence. This took place (probably not coincidentally) more or less simultaneously with the Copenhagen conference of genuine climate scientists which sketches out an uncomfortable future. http://www.climateark.org/CopenhagenClimateConference/ Heartland Institute funded their deniers conference. Heartland has a long history of being well-funded by the tobacco industry and fossil fuel companies. Not that Heartland discloses which corporations and foundations fund its operations; it, like many think tanks, prefers secrecy. Heartland president James L. Bast recently claimed that by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue. Probably enough said! Here's a pdf file about general denier tactics http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/global%20warming%20denial%20industry%20PR%20techniques%20report%20March%202009.pdf An excerpt: There is a long and well-documented history of the development of very effective public relations techniques that are used to create doubt about the realities of scientific conclusions that threaten to impose government regulation on corporations. Most of these techniques were developed and honed by public relations professionals working on behalf of the tobacco companies to downplay the harmful health effects of cigarettes in the late 80's and early 90's. For the last ten years or so, these same PR techniques have been used very effectively by free-market think tanks and fossil-fuel funded organizations to sow public doubt about the realities of climate change in the hopes of delaying government action on the issue. Thomas Malloy is fond of implying that liberals and environmentalists and anyone he perceives as being left of him are actually suffering from mental illness. He has been note to quote some bonkers source that claims this exact point. Thomas said today: Leftists are smart enough, but they have an insanity which makes them unable to see the error of their ways. Specifically, they seem unable to overcome the effects of this insanity Does this remind anyone of the situation of the loony in the asylum telling anyone who will listen that they're the only one who is sane and everyone outside in the world is mad? Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all the individual interactions that occur within the biosphere are also included, by default (and there are trillions of them). And you can't leave the biosphere out, because the annual swings in CO2 concentration due to seasonal changes are still about 2-4 times larger than the annual CO2 increase due to fossil fuel consumption. Okay, but my point is that it does not matter where the CO2 comes from; CO2 is CO2. It has the same effect on the atmosphere regardless of origin; it mixes evenly throughout the atmosphere; and you can measure the total amount. The interactions of the various chemicals in the atmosphere are themselves simpler and smaller in number than the interactions within living systems (such as protein folding). My other point is that the physics of the atmosphere must be well understood because weather prediction is remarkably good these days. The point is well taken that bacteria or some other species may suddenly release an unpredictably large amount of CO2 or some other chemical that affects the atmosphere. That is unpredictable, and dangerous. However, once that chemical enters the atmosphere the effects it will probably have are not as complex or unpredictable as the circumstances that caused the bacteria to release it in the first place. An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
thomas malloy wrote: The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that The point of my posting these reports is that there is a dissident group of planetary scientists who question AGW. Yes, this is common knowledge. You won't hear their voices in the main stream media because it is controlled by the Oligarchy. On the contrary, these people probably get proportionally more mainstream press coverage than conventional planetary scientists do. Just about every article on the subject mentions them. (I mean that they are probably less than ~1% of the total, so only 1 in 100 articles should mention them, to make things proportional. That's a rather silly analysis, I will grant.) Compare this to the fraction of cold fusion scientists represented in the mainstream press: 0%, even though they far outnumber the cold fusion skeptics. This is not caused by an Oligarchy but rather by specific people such as the editor of the Scientific American, the science writer for Time magazine, and others who are well known to me. These people are not politically powerful Svengalis. They are not hidden manipulators of public opinion. They are inept, uneducated, self-important fools who happen to have landed in jobs that are way over their heads. Sort of like George W. Bush. A relatively small number of specific individual people are responsible -- not some amorphous Oligarchy or Hidden Conspiracy. The same is true of Holocaust denial, tobacco company denial that smoking causes cancer, Wall Street credit default swaps Ponzi schemes and other scams, and other irresponsible lies and misunderstandings. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Greetings, all, Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. Usually, though, these perplexing and often frustrating human-based situations are the result of inadvertent patterns of interaction and cognitive limitations. I would add another 'cause' of these situations -- and would include cold fusion and global warming in these -- the relative ineptitude of the 'good guys' (however you define them!) to communicate their PoV. Too often the 'good guys' resort to attack and invective. Advocacy is substituted for effectiveness, righteousness for influence. As I see it, influence is solely dependent on having access to the person or group that one wants to influence. If one has access, then only the interpersonal and communication skills of the 'good guy' will determine the outcome. Does this make sense? -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:45 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies thomas malloy wrote: The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that The point of my posting these reports is that there is a dissident group of planetary scientists who question AGW. Yes, this is common knowledge. You won't hear their voices in the main stream media because it is controlled by the Oligarchy. On the contrary, these people probably get proportionally more mainstream press coverage than conventional planetary scientists do. Just about every article on the subject mentions them. (I mean that they are probably less than ~1% of the total, so only 1 in 100 articles should mention them, to make things proportional. That's a rather silly analysis, I will grant.) Compare this to the fraction of cold fusion scientists represented in the mainstream press: 0%, even though they far outnumber the cold fusion skeptics. This is not caused by an Oligarchy but rather by specific people such as the editor of the Scientific American, the science writer for Time magazine, and others who are well known to me. These people are not politically powerful Svengalis. They are not hidden manipulators of public opinion. They are inept, uneducated, self-important fools who happen to have landed in jobs that are way over their heads. Sort of like George W. Bush. A relatively small number of specific individual people are responsible -- not some amorphous Oligarchy or Hidden Conspiracy. The same is true of Holocaust denial, tobacco company denial that smoking causes cancer, Wall Street credit default swaps Ponzi schemes and other scams, and other irresponsible lies and misunderstandings. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. The situations with cold fusion and global warming denial do not seem complicated or unseen to me. I don't know much about global warming politics, but I know who is denying cold fusion, and what motivates them. It is not because they work for big oil or anything like that. One of the infuriating things about this situation is that the main reasons people attack cold fusion are trivial, and personal. Opposition is mostly driving by people and institutions who went out on a limb denying it back 1989. Most are too lazy or stupid to take a second look. Lemonick, the guy at Time, is so dumb he could not understand a simple cold fusion paper. (He really is astoundingly stupid, as you see from the letters I posted in the News section. You wonder how he ended up as science editor at a major U.S. magazine!) A few, such as Robert Park, are so ego driven they don't want to take another look because they fear being ridiculed if they admit they were wrong. Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia. It is hard to know what motivates a guy like Charles Petit. I think he is just telling the audience what they want to hear. Bashing defenseless people is a good living: cold fusion researchers can't bash him back. No editor will criticize him for attacking people that everyone knows are wrong. He probably has convinced himself that cold fusion is more like a hobby than science as he told me. I am sure he does not care what effect his article has on public opinion. His attitude toward me is friendly and nonchalant, as if none of this matters any more than last week's golf tournament scores. I do sense that people like him see this sort of thing as a political game: who's up and who's down. The fact that it might solve the energy crisis and that people like him are preventing that from happening never seems to have crossed his mind. I would add another 'cause' of these situations -- and would include cold fusion and global warming in these -- the relative ineptitude of the 'good guys' (however you define them!) to communicate their PoV. Too often the 'good guys' resort to attack and invective. Advocacy is substituted for effectiveness, righteousness for influence. I agree that cold fusion researchers have done a poor job of public relations, but you have to cut them some slack. They are researchers. They have no experience in public relations or politics. They have absolutely no influence! The opposition is made of influential people who are specialize in public relations, and who know little or nothing about science, such as magazine hack writers and congressmen. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
(By the way, this list now includes fpur or five Stephens of one spelling or another, and either two or three Stephen Lawrence's.) Jed Rothwell wrote: Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. The situations with cold fusion and global warming denial do not seem complicated or unseen to me. I don't know much about global warming politics, but I know who is denying cold fusion, and what motivates them. It is not because they work for big oil or anything like that. One of the infuriating things about this situation is that the main reasons people attack cold fusion are trivial, and personal. Opposition is mostly driving by people and institutions who went out on a limb denying it back 1989. Most are too lazy or stupid to take a second look. Lemonick, the guy at Time, is so dumb he could not understand a simple cold fusion paper. (He really is astoundingly stupid, as you see from the letters I posted in the News section. You wonder how he ended up as science editor at a major U.S. magazine!) A few, such as Robert Park, are so ego driven they don't want to take another look because they fear being ridiculed if they admit they were wrong. Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia. Cold fusion aside, this is actually not a completely stupid thing to do. Those who just parrot Wikipedia are never guilty of believing we didn't go to the Moon, or there is no global warming, or the world is actually hollow and we live on the inside, or any of a host of other totally idiotic beliefs which crop up repeatedly and which are supported by a host of totally off-base web pages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it's really rather good. It presents the mainstream point of view, and that is nearly always a good place to *start* when learning about any field. Unfortunately Wikipedia is frequently treated as a final authority, which it isn't; no encyclopedia is. Set your expectations for Wikipedia by what you find in the Encyclopedia Americana, and you will probably not be disappointed. And that appears to be the conventional model which those running Wiki are trying to follow. Their iron rule about no research is extremely significant in this regard; it sets off Wikipedia from nearly all normal websites. Ruling out anything which smacks of research seems to be typical behavior for a conventional encyclopedia, but it would be totally weird for Wiki to do that if they thought of themselves as any sort of super-journal. All sorts of journals, newspapers included, are happy to go the research route now and then. If, instead of the Americana, you compare Wikipedia to the Final Encyclopedia in Gordon Dickson's stories, you will, of course, be sorely disappointed.
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all the individual interactions that occur within the biosphere are also included, by default (and there are trillions of them). And you can't leave the biosphere out, because the annual swings in CO2 concentration due to seasonal changes are still about 2-4 times larger than the annual CO2 increase due to fossil fuel consumption. Okay, but my point is that it does not matter where the CO2 comes from; CO2 is CO2. It has the same effect on the atmosphere regardless of origin; it mixes evenly throughout the atmosphere; and you can measure the total amount. The interactions of the various chemicals in the atmosphere are themselves simpler and smaller in number than the interactions within living systems (such as protein folding). My other point is that the physics of the atmosphere must be well understood because weather prediction is remarkably good these days. The point is well taken that bacteria or some other species may suddenly release an unpredictably large amount of CO2 or some other chemical that affects the atmosphere. That is unpredictable, and dangerous. However, once that chemical enters the atmosphere the effects it will probably have are not as complex or unpredictable as the circumstances that caused the bacteria to release it in the first place. An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. What youse guys are trying to get a handle on is the fractal, chaotic -- dialectical -- nature of the whole thing. The Earth's climate and bacterial metabolism are operating on different, but self-similar scales which all feed back into each other and produce emergent behavior. And reaching any 'tipping point' means climbing out of the basin of whatever chaotic attractor our climate happens to be spinning around in phase space right now -- and falling down the other side into who-knows-what- state... - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * In advance of the Revolution: * Get facts get organized * * Fight the Man! * thru these sites movements * * Critical endorsement only Most sites need donations * * http://www.buynothingchristmas.org Buy Nothing Christmas * * http://www.aflcio.com/corporateamericaExecutive PayWatch * * [splitURL] /paywatch/ceou/database.cfm Database * * http://www.africaaction.orgAfrica Action * * http://www.msf.org Doctors Without Borders * * http://sweatshopwatch.orgSweatshop Watch * * http://www.maquilasolidarity.org Maquila Solidarity Network * ** Revealed Truth pales in comparison with the method of Science *** GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm5VX4ACgkQXo3EtEYbt3H/dgCaAsHCmU2/URsOXTg3RxhIu8qz QOEAoIrrIjC/mAaBl3GMD91rTNIr3jak =7MjO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia. Cold fusion aside, this is actually not a completely stupid thing to do. As much as I dislike Wikipedia, I must agree. Wikipedia is a good source of information about conventional subjects. It is not such a good source of information on complex scientific disputes such as cold fusion. All institutions have strengths and weaknesses. A friend of mine is still battling the skeptics at Wikipedia. Yesterday I wrote to him about a well-known skeptic there ScienceApologist who was temporarily banned from editing the cold fusion article: . . . [W]hy not let the fellow had his fun? His hobby is campaigning against cold fusion in Wikipedia. He does little harm. My hobby is campaigning in favor of cold fusion at LENR-CANR.org. The Internet is large enough to accommodate both of us. If the people at Wikipedia countenance his behavior why should you object? Let them run the place however they please. As you said, Wikipedia is dysfunctional [by our standards]. . . . But ScienceApologist like it the way it is. As you said it would be easy to change the rules at Wikipedia. You could just adapt the Citizendium model, which prevents most abuses. So: 1. It would be easy to adjust the rules. 2. The managers at Wikipedia have chosen not to adjust the rules. I conclude that the managers there approve of things the way they are. . . . So who am I to argue with them? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: This is not caused by an Oligarchy but rather by specific people such as the editor of the Scientific American, the science writer for Time magazine, and others who are well known to me. These people are not politically powerful Svengalis. They are not hidden manipulators of public opinion. They are inept, uneducated, self-important fools who happen to have landed in jobs that are way over their heads. Sort of like George W. Bush. A relatively small number of specific individual people are responsible -- not some amorphous Oligarchy or Hidden Conspiracy. The same is true of Holocaust denial, tobacco company denial that smoking causes cancer, Wall Street credit default swaps Ponzi schemes and other scams, and other irresponsible lies and misunderstandings. There is, in fact, an oligarchy in the U.S. (as most everywhere else) -- and they do indeed conspire against us all. 24/7. And they do indeed have paid minions who know what their job is: maintaining the status quo. Over how many dead bodies, etc., that takes. Where people get hung up about this is ascribing personal, venal, long-term motivations to this impersonal machine, which intends to relentlessly grind down all opposition. Which is not to deny that there are actually minions who _do indeed_ take your defiance VERY personally. And will act on that, with the power at their disposal. But it's not really part of their marching orders, generally, eh? - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM FIGHTBACK! *** * In advance of the Revolution: * Get facts get organized * * Fight the Man! * thru these sites movements * * http://www.infoshop.org/wiki Infoshop OpenWiki * *http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix The Matrix:Anti-Capitalist Wiki * http://risingtide.org.uk Greenwash Guerillas UK * * http://risingtidenorthamerica.orgGreenwash Guerillas * * http://www.ministrywatch.com MinistryWatch * * http://www.levees.org Levees.Org * * http://www.govtrack.us GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress * NEW-WORLD-ORDER-SPEAK: Law Order == Police State GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm5eTYACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EiEQCgrJsx6EGzo03MLm32Cp3LLRAM 8rMAoN4GPeLbqtlp2yoSv05A9BelXvxa =tQmo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Lawrence de Bivort ldebiv...@earthlink.net mounted the barricade and roared out: Greetings, all, Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. Usually, though, these perplexing and often frustrating human-based situations are the result of inadvertent patterns of interaction and cognitive limitations. I would add another 'cause' of these situations -- and would include cold fusion and global warming in these -- the relative ineptitude of the 'good guys' (however you define them!) to communicate their PoV. Too often the 'good guys' resort to attack and invective. Advocacy is substituted for effectiveness, righteousness for influence. As I see it, influence is solely dependent on having access to the person or group that one wants to influence. If one has access, then only the interpersonal and communication skills of the 'good guy' will determine the outcome. Does this make sense? This is part of the mechanix of power, certainly. Not the whole part, of course. And of course: it's why challengers to the status quo are systematically frozen-out of the bourgeois mass-media, for instance. Sometimes by the crude application of physical force, if need be. i.e: this is not a natural phenomenon at work: there is _conscious agency_ at work here: an actual enemy/ruler who intends to maintain that rule. - -- grok. - -- *** SOCIALISM OR BARBARISM ? *** * Capitalism wraps itself in flags of convenience * Critical * * The latest one is religious obscurantism * Support only * STEM THE ASSAULT ON MATERIALIST SCIENCE * http://www.world-of-dawkins.com World of Richard Dawkins * * http://www.atheistnetwork.com Atheist Radio Network * * http://kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=33 Explorations archive * * http://www.secularism.org.uk UK National Secular Society * * http://njhn.org New Jersey Humanist Network * * http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/dinobase/dinopage.html DINOBASE * * http://www.dinosaur.net.cn/default_en.htm Dinosaur Museum China * * HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERIALISM: NEW FACE OF OLD EXPLOITATION * GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm5eqEACgkQXo3EtEYbt3FPkACgqcW2N2dcCB0QXqOUEFlGFEMO ivQAoKtPtOjsq2heeFK5bCDjS0Tg+SCq =kAnj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:29:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. [snip] The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at such and such a time, and consequently B will happen also. This is because A arises out of complexity, and is thus inherently unpredictable without certain knowledge of the future. That means that in the time sense, B is also unpredictable. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. [snip] The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at such and such a time, and consequently B will happen also. This is because A arises out of complexity, and is thus inherently unpredictable without certain knowledge of the future. That means that in the time sense, B is also unpredictable. Correct! However, in this case we are talking about a mixture of causes including one that is quite simple and predictable, and a secondary effect that is probably well understood. Let us be specific: 1. CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere by human beings. We know this for a fact. We can estimate how much is being added by tallying up the amount of fossil fuel being burned. We can measure how much is appearing in the atmosphere by monitoring CO2 concentration. CO2 mixes throughout the atmosphere so concentration will not vary from one location to another. That makes it easy to measure. The techniques used to measure it are accurate and reliable, and they are precise enough to correlate the increased amount with fossil fuel. That is, we can confirm that present increases come from fossil fuel. 2. CO2 is also being pumped into the atmosphere by bacteria and other species, and removed by plants and algae. In contrast to the CO2 from fossil fuels, this is complex and difficult to predict. It may suddenly increase. Or, plant life may bloom unexpectedly and it may decrease. We cannot predict what may happen in the future. But we can say with certainty what is happening: CO2 concentration is increasing, and the increase correlates roughly to the amount added by fossil fuels. At present, biological processes are not having a significant effect on CO2 concentration. 3. Our models of the atmosphere are increasingly accurate, as shown by weather prediction (as I said). These models predict that increased CO2 concentration should have already increased average temperatures. This has been confirmed by actual measurements. The models also predict that the problem will get worse in the future as the concentration increases. It is argued by skeptics that the models are not dependable. That is not in evidence; they are working already. It is argued that they cannot work because they are extremely complex, but (as I said) they are no more complex than models in other areas of science which are proven to work. 4. Skeptics argue that the models are not reliable because they describe phenomena on a large scale (a planetary scale). This is faulty reasoning. The scale of a phenomenon has no bearing on whether it is predictable or not, or whether it can be modeled or not. Equally complex models about large-scale phenomena in nature such as the behavior of stars and galaxies are reliable. Going down a similar number of orders of magnitude away from common experience, we find that models describing subatomic particles also work quite well. There is simply no reason to think that models about the entire earth's atmosphere are somehow unreliable because the Earth is large. 5. I reiterate that once the CO2 enters the atmosphere, the model of what happens next becomes relatively simple, and it is well tested and confirmed (unfortunately). 6. Perhaps some enhanced biological process may arise that removes CO2: something like an unexpected plant bloom, or what Russ George is trying to with iron oxide in the ocean. However, we cannot count on this occurring. It would be foolhardy to do nothing and hope that some biological process comes along and rescues us, or that some beneficial feedback mechanism is already at work. Obviously there will be some beneficial feedback and some plant blooms, but there is no evidence that a sufficiently large beneficial feedback mechanism exists. And there is some evidence that the opposite kind of feedback mechanism may arise which makes the problem much worse. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Just to summarize my previous message briefly -- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at such and such a time, and consequently B will happen also. This is because A arises out of complexity, and is thus inherently unpredictable without certain knowledge of the future. This statement is an incomplete description of the actual situation because A (in this case) arises out of both biological complexity and at the same time out of burning coal. The latter is dead simple, and easily measured. We have certain knowledge that it is occurring, and it will continue unless we stop doing it. van Spaandonk is correct about the biological contribution to A - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
thomas malloy wrote: Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. . . . He concluded his remarks by mentioning that Algore has a $300 million budget and that various media organs are complicit in promoting this hysteria. And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: thomas malloy wrote: Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. . . . He concluded his remarks by mentioning that Algore has a $300 million budget and that various media organs are complicit in promoting this hysteria. And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. - Jed So have Malloy explain the record-low Arctic pack ice cover 2 summers ago, and the near-record pack ice low last summer. For starters. - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * Boycott bourgeois analysis:*Get your daily dose from the * * Pundits are propagandists* best english-language Blogs * Critical endorsement only *** Most sites need donations * http://worklessparty.org/wlitblogWork Less Party * * http://www.juancole.com Juan Cole blog * * http://www.empirenotes.org Empire Notes * * http://blogs.zmag.org/killingtrain The Killing Train * * http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches Iraq Dispatches * * http://warblogging.com Warblogging.com ***Civil Liberties * * http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/xml/rss.xmlWatch * HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERIALISM: NEW FACE OF OLD EXPLOITATION GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm4E/oACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EMZQCgyN7e69PbV0WHe9f9LmHPCTvu 3osAn0z9a6MdafZ1we+cnk4k0Wn/E6gh =opJh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Thomas sez: Vortexians; Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. Mr. Horner began by explaining how the AGW promoters have falsified data which conflicts with their assertions. He concluded his remarks by mentioning that Algore has a $300 million budget and that various media organs are complicit in promoting this hysteria. http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1236798185sr=1-1 From the Inside Flap: Liars--Al Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending, and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits--as well as your tax dollars and your liberties-- with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable future consequences of climate change. In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist, and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists --and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money--resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate. In Red Hot Lies, bestselling author Christopher Horner-- himself the target of Greenpeace dirty tricks and alarmist smears--exposes the dark underbelly of the environmental movement. Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism. U.S. senators threaten companies that fund climate change dissenters. Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of balance. The occasional unguarded scientist candidly admits the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing. In the name of saving the planet, anything goes. But why the nasty tactics? Why the cover ups, lies, and intimidation? Because Al Gore and his ilk want to use big government at the local, state, federal, and global level to run your life, and they can brook no opposition. But the actual facts, as Red Hot Lies makes clear, aren't nearly as scary as their fiction. * * * * * Don't worry, be happy. The coming rapture will take care of everything. In the meantime I want to stuff as many gummy bears as I can into my own pockets. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Two seemingly similar but completely different situations. In LENR there is good evidence of heat and nuclear processes evolving from singular experiments where the parameters are well known and easily contained. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans have the ability in either measurement or computation to correctly take into account the dynamics of the vast paramater set of an ENTIRE PLANET (geez, how obvious can this be anyway???). For all we know, AGW has tipped already (as is claimed by alarmists). Or maybe not. Our maybe are activities have in fact been partly responsible for the cooling, etc. We can't properly evaluate the anthropogenic contribution to potential climate change at this time, and those who claim they can are either deluded or frauds. And unlike the case with LENR, they have produced no evidence that they can. So it's inappropriate to compare AGW with LENR in those terms, although the subjects of fraud-for-funding and psychological tendencies (belief paradigms, etc.)are indeed closely involved with each of them. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies ... you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann ...
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Rick Monteverde wrote: Two seemingly similar but completely different situations. In LENR there is good evidence of heat and nuclear processes evolving from singular experiments where the parameters are well known and easily contained. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans have the ability in either measurement or computation to correctly take into account the dynamics of the vast paramater set of an ENTIRE PLANET (geez, how obvious can this be anyway???). For all we know, AGW has tipped already (as is claimed by alarmists). Or maybe not. Our maybe are activities have in fact been partly responsible for the cooling, etc. We can't properly evaluate the anthropogenic contribution to potential climate change at this time, and those who claim they can are either deluded or frauds. Perhaps you overlooked this line in Thomas's message: The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. Thomas is not simply denying AGW -- he's denying GW, period. He's claiming that, despite the melting permafrost, retreating glaciers, and agreement by all significant organizations and mainstream scientists studying the issue, that the Earth is not only not warming up, it's *cooling off*. If I understand your earlier posts, Rick, you're of the opinion that things have gotten hotter but the science simply isn't in place to let us be sure why that's happening. In fact, IIRC, in Thomas's earlier posts he occasionally claimed the same thing, and also claimed that lots of other bodies in the solar system are warming up too, which indicates it's a solar effect, not a local anthropogenic effect. That's a plausible position, whether or not I happen to agree with it. In his present post, on the other hand, Thomas seems to be saying there is a vast conspiracy involving NASA, the U.N., global weather researchers, Horace Heffner (who claims to have observed the warming first hand), Stephen Harper (who also says things are getting hotter), and just about everybody else except my maiden aunt Bessie, and the conspiracy's goal is to delude everybody that things are getting hotter, when really, at least in Thomas's world, they're getting colder. As to the question of whether things have gotten hotter or colder since 1998, it's hard for an amateur to say for sure, but there sure seems to be a lot of very *suggestive* evidence floating around. See, for example, Decade of 1998-2007 the warmest on record: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm 2005 tied for hottest year ever: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html 2007 tied for the second hottest year ever: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm Now if these stories are all a fabric of lies, please try to count up how many people must be involved in the conspiracy to make this fabric hold together. Two people can keep a secret ... if one of them is dead We're talking more like 20,000 people in the conspiracy, though, not just two.
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Rick Monteverde wrote: On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans have the ability in either measurement or computation to correctly take into account the dynamics of the vast paramater set of an ENTIRE PLANET (geez, how obvious can this be anyway???). That does not seem obvious to me. The weather system of ENTIRE PLANET is a complex system of course, but it is not more complex than, say, an E. coli bacteria. It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. Biology beats all other subjects when it comes to complexity. The number of possible permutations of human DNA far exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. Yet despite the unimaginable complexity of biological systems we do have a handle on them. Of course it is impossible to know everything about them! We will never be able to predict behavior of individual E. coli or humans with any assurance, but we can generalize about them with confidence. This assertion is rather like saying that because we will not fully understand E. coli in the rest of human history (probably true -- assuming people survive a few hundred million years into the future) we cannot possibly know or predict anything about E. coli today (manifestly false). We can observe the of the entire planet as one discrete weather system with weather satellites, and the details up close with individual sensors at ground level. We can model the weather with far more ease than we can model, say, the folding of a complex protein. The most computation intense projects these days are in biology, not weather. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. Non sequitur --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:24:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] That does not seem obvious to me. The weather system of ENTIRE PLANET is a complex system of course, but it is not more complex than, say, an E. coli bacteria. It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. Humans perhaps more than most, because our intelligence magnifies our influence beyond our direct influence (i.e. beyond the amount of CO2 our bodies produce, and the amount of food we consume). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
thomas malloy wrote: And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. Non sequitur Not at all, but I did not explain what I meant as clearly as Stephen A. Lawrence did: Now if these stories are all a fabric of lies, please try to count up how many people must be involved in the conspiracy to make this fabric hold together. Two people can keep a secret ... if one of them is dead We're talking more like 20,000 people in the conspiracy, though, not just two. The 20,000 people is for global warming. For cold fusion you would have to enlist ~2,000 people in the conspiracy, and you have to swear them to scientific omerta. I know a large fraction of those ~2,000 people personally I assure you they would not keep secret what's for lunch in an hour, never mind an important secret for 20 years. I personally have been booted off of more than one discussion group because I keep no secrets. If I had any inkling that cold fusion data is fake, I would be the first to blab about it. The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that Albert Gore (of all people!) is masterminding them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. I realize that, but the effect of short term inputs from living creatures (things that vary by the century or millennium) is much smaller than inputs from chemicals which are present in stable amounts. (Or chemicals that used to be present in stable amounts, before the Industrial Revolution.) Obviously, life has a huge impact on the atmosphere with plants freeing up oxygen, and animals producing CO2 from respiration. Things like forest fires can only happen on a planet with life. The color of the ground being green in summer and brown in winter is another important input to weather. But these inputs are stable over long periods of time, and predictable, so they can be discounted -- you might say. The major contributions to weather are relatively simple and few in number -- mainly sunlight and about a couple dozen chemicals I believe -- and this is nothing compared chemicals that play a role in cells. The fact that some of those dozen chemicals (such as O2) come from living systems does not make them particularly unpredictable or complex. There have been dramatic short-term changes to weather from non-living natural phenomena such as the explosion of Krakatoa. If anything, these changes give credence to the global warming theories. Humans perhaps more than most, because our intelligence magnifies our influence beyond our direct influence (i.e. beyond the amount of CO2 our bodies produce, and the amount of food we consume). That's the crux of the matter. Living creatures themselves have a predictable effect on weather. Industrialize intelligent species are a new phenomenon and the effect they may have is entirely different from what other species have had. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. I realize that, but the effect of short term inputs from living creatures (things that vary by the century or millennium) is much smaller than inputs from chemicals which are present in stable amounts. If any of youse got my email about the CBC radio science series on MP3 podcast, you might know that one of them is a hour-long interview with James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia Hypothesis... killfiles can be a double-edged sword youse know. ;P - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * Boycott the Bourgeois Economy: BUY PROGRESSIVE * ** Critical endorsement only * Gift-giving Year-round ** * http://www.cafepress.com/handsoffvenez Hands Off Venezuela store * * http://www.cafepress.com/tarantulabros Tarantula Brothers Emporium * http://www.southendpress.org South End Press * * http://store.publicintegrity.org Ctr for Public Integrity store * * http://www.assatashakur.org/books.htmAssata Shakur Books * * http://www.greenandblacks.com Green Blacks Fairtrade Chocolate * * http://www.fairtrade.org.uk Fairtrade Mark UK * * http://www.fairtrade.ie Fairtrade Mark Eire * * Neoconservatism: Where Borg Empire strike back thru The Matrix * GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm4ddMACgkQXo3EtEYbt3FQLgCcC0FKCX9Rn1LWBJNV5zmYrQ66 2NUAoLZdLquw/b6Qi7+jW+eFH73TwWZ/ =/Lix -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:42:31 -0400: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. I realize that, but the effect of short term inputs from living creatures (things that vary by the century or millennium) is much smaller than inputs from chemicals which are present in stable amounts. (Or chemicals that used to be present in stable amounts, before the Industrial Revolution.) Obviously, life has a huge impact on the atmosphere with plants freeing up oxygen, and animals producing CO2 from respiration. Things like forest fires can only happen on a planet with life. The color of the ground being green in summer and brown in winter is another important input to weather. But these inputs are stable over long periods of time, and predictable, so they can be discounted -- you might say. They are not necessarily stable. A drought, a flood, or human activity can change vast areas considerably. Migration of species due to changing climate can also. The average over the planet may stay stable for a while, but shifts in climate will change that too. IOW there are feedback loops between the climate and the biosphere, which can't be easily accounted for, and could result in rapid change. An example is the melting of the permafrost enabling the growth of bacteria, and release of CO2 and methane. IOW this is not simple to model (depending on how accurate an answer you want). If you insist on simplifying it, then you *will* get the occasional surprise, and some of those surprises will be massive (due to feedback generating a change of state in the whole system - e.g. change in the gulf stream). ...the beating of a butterfly's wings in the Amazon... The major contributions to weather are relatively simple and few in number -- mainly sunlight and about a couple dozen chemicals I believe -- and this is nothing compared chemicals that play a role in cells. The fact that some of those dozen chemicals (such as O2) come from living systems does not make them particularly unpredictable or complex. Oh, but it does. As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all the individual interactions that occur within the biosphere are also included, by default (and there are trillions of them). And you can't leave the biosphere out, because the annual swings in CO2 concentration due to seasonal changes are still about 2-4 times larger than the annual CO2 increase due to fossil fuel consumption. [snip] As an example of what could go wrong:- A slight warming might lead to a reduction in the viability of nitrogen binding bacteria in the soil, which in turn results in a severe reduction in plant growth over a wide area. That in turn results in a dramatic reduction in CO2 uptake, and a consequent increase in warming, resulting in a positive feedback loop. This is something I just made up, but it does demonstrate that there are potentially zillions of things that could have an effect, and that it's not at all simple. Humans perhaps more than most, because our intelligence magnifies our influence beyond our direct influence (i.e. beyond the amount of CO2 our bodies produce, and the amount of food we consume). That's the crux of the matter. Living creatures themselves have a predictable effect on weather. See above. Industrialize intelligent species are a new phenomenon and the effect they may have is entirely different from what other species have had. True. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Stephen: ... Rick, you're of the opinion that things have gotten hotter ... Please insert may (have gotten hotter), since it seems to be a trend, although trends in complex dynamical systems are notoriously untrustworthy. Jed: The planet's weather is less complex than a bacterium? Funny you should mention that. There are more kinds of bacteria than all other animal and plant species combined by a factor of perhaps some hundreds of millions. Yes I wrote factor, as in multiples of. They are by some incredibly vast margin the largest biomass there is. And those bugs behave in ways that are not known or understood. They affect the climate. They sculpt and alter the makeup of the surface, ocean, and atmosphere of the entire planet, changing everything alive and not. (I wasn't going to mention it, but in addition: for every bacteria, there's a phage - interacting with all those bacterial hosts, and on and on it goes.) Some climate models use cows, sheep, etc. because of the gasses their bacteria make. If we were all vegetarians, greenhouse gasses would be reduced. Maybe - I'm a veg-o so I do my part. g But that's such a trivial portion of the bacterial load in the earth and oceans, and those others also interact with and process all sorts of chemicals and things connected to other significant processes. There must be astronomical numbers of possible reactions between and among them and their inputs and outputs that can cause one thing or another to cross some tipping point and all of a sudden our atmosphere is made of cyanide or something, or is frozen solid or evaporated into space. Apparently it happened before and it's why we have grown to like oxygen. Did someone program all that into their models? You think science *could ever* understand or make useful predictive models in that range? Really? And bacterial interaction, immensely complicated as it is, is just *one* (albeit significant) variable parameter in the enormous climate mix! There's one thing of which I am absolutely certain when it comes to interpreting a system this complex: from all starting points save perhaps overwhelming total runaway conditions, only a god could comprehend and predict what would be likely to happen. And they would have to be a very big and important god at that. Al Gore is kinda big, but he's no god. Despite all that, I think there is yet another way we might get better clues about how this single planetary climate system might evolve. Hint: Kepler's a good start. - R.
