The below "debate" is an attempt to bring such complexity into the warming discussion that most folks head for the hills when the geek at the party starts arguing with the nerd. Try to get "experts" to even agree what the ocean's level is -- why, you'll be there for a lifetime trying to figure out what to believe, cuz, there's tides and waves and local but temporary waxing and waining. And that rhymes with migraine and I'm outta here sez the average Jane.
Like that, the politicians create obfuscation and then, in the absence of a general audience that's up on the topic, they can simply do what their bribers want them to do, knowing that they can effectively debate with anyone in the public and seem reasonable.....politicians love deniability. Think Clinton and how much time was spent defining the word "is." Think thalidomide. Remember that drug that was prescribed by physicians to, say, 20,000,000 women (don't know the figure) and out started coming all the flipper kids? Yet, our glorious BigPharm and the government said all the testing that was necessary had been done on the drug -- so many rabbits killed and dissected etc. Just so, when it comes to putting a chemical into our beloved Earth's atmosphere (her lungs,) I'm one of those who kinda gets yucked out by that -- just on the principle of the thing. Think how you'd feel if a doctor told you that your newborn infant needed to have India Ink injected into her pure pristine body. Oh, you'd be assured that it was a harmless procedure needed for some sort of scientific use, but that explanation would not make you comfortable, and it wouldn't tamp down your yucky response processes. Next time you read the ingredients on the label of your packaged food, consider that each of the non-food chemicals arrived at the food-factory in 55 gallon drums, and that you wouldn't eat a tablespoon full of any of them straight from the barrel. Same fucking deal we're handing Mother Earth -- a generally recognized as safe list of chemicals and bug parts that are allowed in our food. "Don't worry, Mom, the BHT is a preservative, and it's been as scrutinized as thalidomide by real scientists -- scientists who are hard at work night and day discovering chemical truths for huge corporations -- so you know it's all being done in a top notch fashion." The government allows over 30,000 chemicals into the soil, air and water. Your breathing, your very breathing, your drinking, your very drinking, and your nourishment, your very nourishment is BEING FUCKED WITH BY THOSE WHO SIMPLY CANNOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO, and most don't know that it's all determined by BigMoney. Ask the aluminum industry what they did to get fluoride (an aluminum industry by-product chemical of great toxicity and no usefulness: http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm ) Ask 'em. Their answer: dump it in the local drinking water and call it a miracle for kids' teeth. Spend some bucks buying off the dental associations. Done deal. BigMedia isn't churning about any of this in the headlines. Who cares who's making money from anything, right? What this country needs is another doctor who tells it, "Take two thalidomides and call Dr. Maddoff or Dr. AIG in the morning." I figures we need a couple more BigRich thieves caught red-handed and a major chemical that fucks up kids being touted by the AMA like it was a new children's vitamin. Toss in another Katrina, and now ya gots the basis of a fomentation of a national undercurrent of a queasiness in the American gut. Until then, think of every smoke stack like it's Mother Earth smoking a cigarette behind the barn. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > > > Simple stuff. If the extra CO2 didn't keep the world warmer then > > we'd have to re-write the laws of thermodynamics. A famous > > scientist once said something along the lines of "If your new > > theory conflicts with Newtonian Mechanics, then tough for > > Newtonian Mechanics, if your new theory conflicts with > > Special Relativity then tough for Special Relativity, but if your > > new theory conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics then you > > new theory is in deep trouble". > > > > That's where the arguments of climate change deniers fall down, > > they conflict with the laws of thermodynamics, oh and actual > > observations as well. > > > > You need to get your information from sources other than Faux News > /Fox Noise, try this > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change . > > > > If that's too tough for you then stick to this > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland . > > > > "Simple stuff" eh? Too simple? > > One wonders why emminent scientists e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Svensmark, > Dyson, Grey etc etc could be so scientifically illiterate as to not > *get* the truths that to you appear to be so simple and beyond question. > > Here'a one of those brainless idiots who lacks your cognitive > excellence: Syun Akasofu, Founding director of the International Arctic > Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK: > > "... > 1. The IPCC wants to claim that the global average temperature has > unexpectedly and abruptly increased during the 20th century after a > gradual cooling from the year 1000, and that this unexpected increase > of the temperature is mostly man-made-the greenhouse effect of CO2. > > 2. For their purpose, the IPCC ignored the fact that the Earth went > through a cold period called "the Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800. > > 3. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 to > the present. A recovery from a cold period is warming. It is mostly > this warming that is causing the present climate change and it is not > man-made. If they admit the existence of the Little Ice Age, they > cannot claim that the global average temperature unexpectedly increased > from 1900. > > 3a. In addition to the steady recovery from the Little Ice Age, there > are superposed oscillatory changes. The prominent one is called the > multi-decadal oscillation. > > 3b. In fact, most of the temperature change from 1800 to 2008 can be > explained by the combination of the recovery from the Little Ice Age > and the multi-decadal oscillation. If the recovery from the Little Ice > Age continues, the predicted temperature rise will be less than 1°C > (2°F) by 2100, not 3~6°C. > > 4. Because the warming began as early as 1800, not after 1946 (when CO2 > in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly), the Little Ice Age was a > sort of unwanted and inconvenient fact for the IPCC. (In their > voluminous IPCC report, the Little Ice Age was mentioned casually only > once, referring to it as "the so-called Little Ice Age.") > > 5. There are a large number of observations that the Earth has been > recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 on, not from 1946 when CO2 > in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. For example: > * Receding of glaciers in many part of the world > * Receding of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean > * Change in freezing/melting dates of northern rivers and lakes > > 6. There is no firm observational confirmation that CO2 is really > responsible for the warming during the last century. It is simply and > assumption or hypothesis that the IPCC has presented as a fact. > > 7. The IPCC claims that supercomputer studies confirm the hypothesis. > > 8. Supercomputers cannot confirm their hypothesis, since they can > simply "tune" their computer programs so as to fit the observations. > > 9. Although the IPCC predicted that by the year 2100 the temperature > will increase 3~6°C, the temperature has stopped increasing after 2000 > and shows even a decreasing sign. > > 10. Thus, their prediction failed even during the first decade of the > present century, in spite of the fact that CO2 is still increasing. > > 11. This means that their CO2 hypothesis and computer programs are > shown to be incorrect, proving that the program was tuned. > > 12. Why? Because they ignored natural causes of climate change, such > as the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal > oscillation. > > 13. The stopping of the warming is caused by the fact that the multi- > decadal oscillation, another natural cause, has overtaken the recovery > from the Little Ice Age. > > 14. In fact, the same thing happened in 1940, and the temperature > actually decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that CO2 > began to increase rapidly in 1946. > > 15. It was said at that time that a new ice age was coming even by some > of those who now advocate the CO2 hypothesis. > > 16. If the IPCC could include the physical processes involved in the > recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, > they could have predicted the stopping of the temperature increase. > > 17. However, they could not program processes for the recovery from the > Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, because the causes of > the Little Ice Age, or the recovery from it, or the multi-decadal > oscillation are not known yet. There are many unknown natural changes, > including the Big Ice Ages. > > 18. Thus, the present state of climate change study is still > insufficient to make accurate predictions of future temperature > changes. Climate change studies should go back to basic science, > avoiding interference from special interest groups, including the mass > media. > > 19. Unfortunately, I must conclude that the IPCC manipulated science > for its own purpose and brought the premature science of climate change > to the international political stage, causing considerable confusion > and advancing the completely unnecessary "cap and trade" argument. > > 20. What is happening now at many climate change conferences is simply > an airing of the struggle between the poor countries trying to seize > money from the rich countries, using the term "climate change" as an > excuse. > > 21. We should stop convening useless international conferences by > bureaucrats and pay much more attention to environmental destructions > under global capitalism. There is no reason to alarm the general > public with predictions of catastrophic disasters caused by the CO2 > effect; and the mass media should stop reporting premature science > results. > > 22. Basically, what is really needed are effective energy saving > efforts by all countries. > > Footnote: The hockey stick figure, which played the important role in > the IPCC report of 2001, has not officially been withdrawn yet, > although it has since been found to be erroneous. > ..." >
