I think the prediction was based on the evidence that Earth has been subject to periodic ice ages. Given the frequency of ice ages in the past it was simply assumed there would be another ice age sometime within the next 15,000 (?) years.
Harry On 24/6/2007 7:54 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: I last posted on the global warming subject several months ago with a question that was not adequately answered by the global warming believers. So, here it is again. Why were the climate experts of the late seventies warning us of a coming ice age while we were in the early stages of global warming? Were they that stupid, or was it that an ice age didn¹t fit the agenda of the world¹s powerful elite? If the experts were that stupid in the relatively recent past, can we realistically believe today¹s experts have it right now? Jeff From: Nick Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 8:03 PM To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real Philip Winestone replied to me privately and, amid his assertions of his own objectivity, he wrote <<First, I don't harbour "beliefs" or buy anything "wholesale". This is your arrogance speaking; you are the only person on earth who thinks straight; the rest of the peasants harbour black belief systems. This is your fantasy>> Hardly, Mr W - the first sentence of your initial email started <<When the rational minds at Vortex start to buy into the mythology/religion of man-made global warming, we're in deep trouble>> Deconstructing this, it is plain that, if you were truly trying to accurately communicate your ideas, you believe that man made global warming is "mythology/religion" I say this BECAUSE YOU STATED IT and it therefore follows that you have bought wholesale the so-called arguments (I can hardly bring myself to dignify them with that description) of the "denier" lobby because no rational person, acquainted with the whole picture, could accept your demonstrated beliefs as rational - furthermore, when you state that when the <<rational minds at Vortex start to buy into...>> it is clear that you are suggesting that the less rational minds of the non-Vortexians have already bought into the "mythology/religion" and been already fooled about climate change and simultaneously that you haven't and that, in your minds eye, validates your claimed position as not "harbour(ing) beliefs or buy(ing) anything wholesale. You plainly believe that you are remain smarter than the fooled rest (even the "rational minds at Vortex") and can see through the fog that is clouding the minds of all the rest of us. As it is your ideas that are clouded and fooled - I previously offered to show you how - it is clear that therefore you harbour beliefs, and have bought wholesale, the arguments of the climate change deniers. Q.E.D. I do admit to arrogance but it is justified arrogance because I have been demolishing counter "arguments" against the reality of the man made climate change hypothesis since the late 80's. I just wish you people would occasionally stop and analyse the potential consequences of your unjustified arrogance and beliefs. I have seen the same stupid type of arguments come up time and time again. I see that you differentiate in your words between <<the word "stupidity" and the words "lack of intelligence" ... one can be intelligent and stupid at the same time">> Quite - I have always found the intelligent-but-stupid the hardest to deal with... <<You obviously didn't read the article in yesterday's National Post, where the writer wrote (from a scientific standpoint) that that glowing orb above us, may have something to do with the earth's warming and cooling cycle>> No, I didn't. What would be the point? Neither do I make any attempt to listen to the speakers on coast to coast AM radio saying similar things (that Thomas Malloy keeps bringing to our attention). Your apparent belief in the value of this article is an example of how you are fooling yourself with the propaganda. Deconstructing your statement above, you imply that, because the writer (elsewhere, you describe them as a physicist) writes "from a scientific standpoint", that others who put forward the man-made-contribution-to-climate-change hypothesis are not scientists, or at least are lesser scientists than the one you give credit too. Guys like this one are mavericks and not in a good sense. OF COURSE the sun has something to do with the warming and cooling cycles. That is transparently obvious and totally irrelevant to whether humans are influencing the climate. Do you think that the multitudinous real experts in climate science (1000's to one against the deniers) do not know, or have not considered, this factor in their deliberations? Ludicrous! I do not know which of the solar radiation arguments this "scientist" came out with - there are deniers who claim that we are in a natural warming cycle due to increasing solar radiation and others (even fewer) who claim the opposite for different reasons such as ice age cycles, planetary tilt and God knows what else. The latest but one red herring I heard was that because Mars is currently undergoing a warming trend that this proves that measured warming on Earth is therefore purely natural - pathetic and desperate it may be but nevertheless the denier lobby has been parading this so called argument hither and yon! The fact that Mars climate scientists immediately came out and demolished the faulty asssumptions and logic of the deniers received much less publicity. The very latest red herring is the "Holocene and Fred Flintstone" piece of poison. Have a look at this article http://www.newstatesman.com/200705210083#reader-comments and the reader comments afterwards which adequately shoot down the raw idiocy expressed by Ruth Lea (Director of the Centre for Policy Studies and of Global Vision. She is a governor of the London School of Economics and a non-executive director of Arbuthnot Banking Group plc). Another clear case of vanity gone mad. This "it's all the fault of natural warming cycles argument" is a very common one amongst the deniers now they find it very hard to deny that Earth actually is warming (N.B. they used to deny this too! Remember the "heat island" and satellite temperature measurement misdirections?) The idea that the deniers have spotted something that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have forgotten or ignored and that ordinary lay people reading the Canadian National Post or listening to Coast to Coast AM will see though the stupid scientists ideas is just too arrogant and mindboggling to be credited... but sadly this what we have to deal with as the entrenched forces continue to fight back by encouraging and investing in this philosophical sleight-of-hand. I say if we are in a natural warming cycle and we are increasingly skewing the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by extracting sequestered carbon from fossil fuels then this is just throwing petrol onto the fire and is therefore even madder - it follows that anyone who uses any of the natural warming mechanisms as a rhetorical device to fool the reader/listener that all warming is natural and that humans have no exacerbating effect on it is therefore a "denier" and is therefore also utterly mad, not to mention extremely dangerous. I wrote in my email to you << You do not appear to realise that the "deniers" have been coming out with one carefully crafted excuse after another at short intevals for at least TWENTY YEARS now>> This solar radiation thingy is one of those excuses - it has been muddying the waters for ages now and has been shot down over and over and over again. Every few months some alleged scientist comes out with it (or one of the other red herring arguments) and gets airtime, or journalistic coverage, and bingo! another horde of gullible people are fooled. Did you not understand my mention of the legendary Greek monster, the Hydra? All the aforementioned red herring arguments are endlessly recycled on the "denier" websites and the gullible are constantly stumbling upon these and feel empowered that all of a sudden they are in the know and everyone else has been fooled. Human vanity is expoited yet again to cloud minds. I note that you did not take me up when I challenged you with:- << Whatever the ideas/arguments that you have bought wholesale from the, frankly evil (because of their effect), climate change deniers I will show you where they are either a) lies b) logically wrong c) crude rhetoric designed to fool people so they defer to the selfish special interest groups (i.e, big Oil/Coal) who have been throwing money at groups to generate this poisonous rubbish for decades) or d) all three. Bring on whatever you have got - I will try to demolish it>> Finally, in a reply to John Berry you wrote:- << Don't make the unjustified assumption that I "believe" anyone, including myself>> People who argue like you do often come out with this defense after their rhetoric has been challenged - I imagine they believe it makes them look all philosophical and rational and objective - really, the outside world tends to judge language like this as that of someone wriggling out of a spot... Nick Palmer No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date: 6/23/2007 11:08 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date: 6/23/2007 11:08 AM
