Ed - Melting ice may tell us that some places have been warming, though it doesn't always indicate why. Whatever. As I said, climate changes are inevitable and ongoing. I'm taking issue with the computer model driven ideas that we caused warming, we can mitigate it, and giant Algore or worse versions of socialism are the only way to administer the effort. Instead we must prepare for and adapt to changes. And of course government should play an appropriate role in regulating and guiding us in that effort, since free markets, capitalism, and politics are not known for being very forward thinking, despite their strong instincts of self preservation. GW may or may not be real, but evidence is clear that global changes are always occurring, pollution will kill us and make us miserable, AGW is a hoax, and politicians are sometimes nothing more than dangerous posers or hoodlums. Knowing all that pretty much points us in the right direction, and there are some parallels in that direction to general AGW solutions like weaning off oil, but there are also some significant diversions. But like I said in my previous response, let's let truth guide us, not the lies. I believe the difference there is very important, and evidence supports my conclusion. As to the battles I pick, I first make sure they're right ones. Then I know that the price I pay, regardless of how high it is, is worth it.
- Rick -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Edmund Storms; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick, you don't need computer models. All you need is the fact ice is melting everywhere. In addition, the plants are moving up the mountains to cooler regions. The average temperature is going up. This has nothing to do with liberals or socialists. You can bitch all you want about government control but this will not change reality. Even if a cooling cycle is in the works, no harm is produced by putting as much effort into alternative energy as possible. It creates jobs and it gives us more energy in the long run. This is a win-win situation. The political battles can be fought over other issues, such as why wealth is moving out of the middle class and into fewer and fewer hands. As for government control, you well know that without control, society simply cannot function. Without control, the rich, the strong and the ruthless dominate everyone else. Total freedom has never lasted long in history. The only issue is how much control is required and where is it applied. The debate between liberals, conservatives, and now the religious right involves just what is to be controlled. As for voting, the closer a society is to a true democracy, the more likely it is to fail. This happens because the average person wants to receive as much as possible from the government and give as little as possible. Eventually, in their ignorance, the average person supports a government that bankrupts the country. We are now on this path. I suggest you pick you battles more carefully because unless we take a different path, you and many other people will pay a very dear price. Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Ed - > > My information that the computer models can't accurately track > reality? > Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too, > validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are > honest about how they work. You can't expect a recursive computer > model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary > weather/ocean system. > Even if you had precise data on every cubic centimeter of sky, ocean, > and land surface, and the data weren't linked to geological, cosmic, > and other influences from outside your system (they are of course), > you still wouldn't get much more model accuracy than the wild guesses > and massaged outcomes you have now. That's one. Another is bad data > collection and analysis, documented extensively. That's two, but it's > really moot because of one. > Three: a false problem is being substituted for real ones, used as > cover to impose socialist-style government control on a population > that otherwise repeatedly rejects such attempts when allowed to > express their choice at the ballot box. Liberals and socialists are > inherently totalitarian and have a hard time with that darn voting > thing, much preferring to rule the masses by direct edict. So they use > false issues and the courts, if not force, to get what can't be > obtained democratically. It's #3 that does make me a bit angry. To > answer your question, the advantage of being angry about someone > trying to steal your liberty on false pretense (or otherwise)is that > you are inspired to act to stop it. One small example of such loss is > the compact fluorescent bulb. Mercury leaching out of landfills into > the groundwater is a Bad Thing. It is a fact. Yet their use is being > *legislated* (incandescents banned - loss of liberty to choose) > because they may reduce the emission of a harmless gas! The only real > advantage is saving a small amount of oil, but the cost is real > pollution vs. imaginary AGW. > That is > wrong. Food as energy (ethanol) is wrong. Failure to properly and > safely exploit our own existing energy resources for those same false > reasons is wrong. > > Yes we need to get off foreign oil in the very short term and > eventually all oil as a fuel source. I'm in the tank for that. But we > cannot afford to waste any more precious time and resources acting on > the basis that AGW exists, much less do we have any predictive ability > or practical capacity to mitigate such changes in any way. Notice > where the posts trailed off about slowing a harmful cooling cycle? > Good at a bad time, or maybe bad at good, but ... ppppft. The point is > even if we were granted the power to begin directly manipulating the > weather, we have no clue as to how to wield that power to obtain the > desired result. > >>> So, what is the point of fighting this process? > > In addition to the practical matters above, our integrity and more. > It's > wrong to direct public policy based on a lie. For instance, I think > most people here, including perhaps yourself Ed, feel that certain > policies arising from the war on terror or at least the Iraq invasion > are based on a lie. How does that make you feel? Sad? Angry? There you > go. Let's use truth and good science this time. > > - Rick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Edmund Storms > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless > > Rick, I ask you where you get your information and why does the claim > for global warming causes such an emotional reaction? The world is > clearly warming. The only issue is how much of this warming is caused > by burning fossil fuels. Regardless of the answer to this question, > what is the advantage of being so angry about the debate? Reducing the > use of fossil fuel has great advantage regardless of its contribution > to CO2. So, what is the point of fighting this process? > > Ed > > > On Sep 2, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: > >> >> Sounds scary. But why are sea ice levels still reported to be so low >> in the arctic if it's getting colder? Why is NOAA saying this July >> was the 9th warmest globally on record? >> http://www.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080815_ncdc.html What do sunspots >> have to do with global climate? Noctilucent clouds not forming? Do >> they matter? I know there's some coincidence between low sunspot >> cycles and colder climate, but how good is that circumstantial data? >> Better than the data associating warming with human greenhouse gas >> output? >> >> One thing is very certain: we do not have any possibility of >> predicting a global 'trend' either way in the absence of any real >> handle on the actual causes of such trends. That otherwise rational >> people have concluded that human activity is a significant climate >> change driver based on untenable models and theories is very sad, >> especially when false 'solutions' are proposed, even demanded and >> *legislated*, right at the time when real solutions such as you >> mention below are actually called for. I wouldn't want to repeat that >> mistake with sunspots or anything else until we really know what >> we're talking about. What might look like blood in the water could >> really just be an algae bloom due to global warming.<g> But you're >> right when you imply that dealing with climate change means preparing >> for it, not making foolish attempts to mitigate it. I posted here >> before why it's absolutely certain that the models and notions about >> anthropogenic global warming are totally nonsense (not false per se, >> simply nonsense as in completely detached from reality). At the same >> time everyone can see that the climate is always changing. You either >> have the courage to accept science despite social and political >> pressures, or flee to your comforting illusions and stick your head >> right up where NOAA must be putting their thermometers. >> >> Since the faith based AGW movement has apparently become a government >> favored and sanctioned religion in violation of our Constitution, I'm >> inclined to engage in civil disobedience with regard to any laws or >> regulations based on that religion, and to oppose the activities of >> its zealots with appropriate actions of my own. C'mon you alternative >> thinkers here, join the revolution. Cells of resistance are popping >> up all over. Free beer while it lasts. >> >> - Comrade Rick-0 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:52 AM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: [Vo]:Sunspotless >> >> Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice >> there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of >> Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for >> the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing >> is made of the fact that >> 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in >> recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Almost everyone >> who lives on the real earth, rather that the computer climate model >> earth, has noticed that it's been a lot cooler lately. Where I live >> in southern California, winter before last winter was the coldest >> since 1948, but of course nothing was made of that in the news. I >> lost 500 feet of ficus hedge because it froze to death. There was a >> massive die-out of native plant species in the canyons near my home >> as well, all frozen. >> >> The fast dancing and circumlocutory nonsense spewing forth from the >> Global Warming Priesthood grasping for some explanation are becoming >> both shrill and comical. The real reason for climate changes, solar >> activity, is showing us something quite the opposite of Algore's >> dreamworld. You know, that's the one where all of us ride bicycles >> and starve to death, while Algore flies about in his Gulfstream and >> has a special lane on the road for his fleet of SUVs while he grows >> ever fatter. Anyone else notice he's begun to resemble a fat Bela >> Lugosi? >> >> There has been a total lack of sunspots for a month. This is not >> good news, either for real people or Algore. This normally indicates >> a significant colder period on the earth, or even an ice age. We >> need to get really serious about energy supplies, both conventional >> and new, especially the new ones. We also need to quit whining about >> genetically modified crops. If there is a long term colder climate, >> agricultural output will plummet. More energy and higher crop yields >> in a shorter growing season will be essential to prevent the >> starvation of millions or even billions. >> >> Here is a link to the observations about the lack of sunspots: >> >> http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a >> +C >> entury >> /article12823.htm >> >> http://tinyurl.com/562srq >> >> M. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
