<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
In fact I think it's fairly well established that global warming is
occurring, although there does seem to be a question about the
extent to which it is anthropogenic. It seems clear that it is
producing real problems that need to be dealt with by democratic
action - not by corporate interests. <br>
<br>
In a keynote speech in China a year ago ("Contours of the world:
continuities and changes," August 13, 2010) , Chomsky observed -
correctly it seems to me - that there are two major threats to
humankind: "One is the environmental catastrophe, the other is the
threat of nuclear power."<br>
<br>
Chomsky enlarged upon the point in answer to a question about
whether he was in favor of nuclear power:<br>
<br>
"No. I don't think anybody's in favor of nuclear power, even
business, because it's too expensive. But what I am in favor of is
being rational on the topic. That means recognizing that the
question of nuclear power isn't a moral one -- it's a technical one.
You have to ask what the consequences of nuclear power are, versus
the alternatives.<br>
<br>
"There's a range of other alternatives, including conservation,
solar and so on. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. But
imagine that the only alternatives were hydrocarbons and nuclear
power. If you had to have one or the other, you'd have to ask
yourself which is more dangerous to the environment, to human life,
to human society. It's not an entirely simple question.<br>
<br>
"For example, suppose that fusion were a feasible alternative. It
could turn out to be nonpolluting. But there are also negative
factors. Any form of nuclear power involves quite serious problems
of radioactive waste disposal, and can also contribute to nuclear
weapons proliferation."<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/25/11 11:58 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:9D2BD3BA-F78E-424D-B40E-D5DEB0DA4AAB@illinois.edu"
type="cite">The perversity of these supposedly clever arguments
can hardly be overestimated.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The money behind the (anthropogenic) global warming "deniers"
comes mainly from fossil energy corporations and right wing
elements such as Tea Partyers (funded by Koch like types) and
their representatives in Congress.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Abysmal ignorance on the environmental problems facing the
globe, or whatever else is hidden behind this (facade of?)
ignorance, on the part of those who may be "anti-war" ought
not to be excused. Carl ought to query his idol Chomsky on
what he thinks about AGW, and while at it he might query him
about the catastrophic dangers of nuclear power about which
Chomsky has been strangely silent. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--mkb</div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:21 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> These are the Obama
Years: the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be
RIGOROUSLY ENFORCED until a desirable result is
obtained. (But the media are not to investigate or
report on the process, until a successful outcome is
reached; cf. <span class="st">Overseas Contingency
Operations from Libya to Pakistan<em></em></span>.)<br>
<br>
The important question about AGW is of course, How do
you make money from it? As my old friend Cooey Bono (no
relation to singers of that name), use to say "Who's ox
[or was it 'ogs?] is being al-Gored?" <br>
<br>
We need in fact an Al-Gore rhythm to beat upon our
fellow citizens' heads and calculate how they'll react
to the temperature's being slowly raised on their
immersed anuras...<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/25/11 4:04 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E2DDA75.90107@pigs.ag"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
Ultimately it seems that the general good will be
greater threatened <br>
by coldness than by being excessively warmed.<br>
<br>
Carbon dioxide is great stuff if you are a plant, and
plants seem to have exceptional utility.<br>
<br>
There is a tendency toward aggregation, and
aggregation seems to result in concentration of wastes
although<br>
there is some economy in non-duplication of some
shared solutions to needs.<br>
<br>
It's not just big business but big cities also are a
problem as well as a solution.<br>
<br>
[It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics that's the
problem. <br>
Perhaps if we can cut the funding for its enforcement,
it<br>
will just sort of recede into the dustbin of
obsolescence?]<br>
<br>
The problem is not so much Government itself (yes it
hurts to say so) but<br>
rather it's the Perversion of Government and the
Perversion of the Law<br>
such that the Many are bent to serve the desires of
the Few.<br>
<br>
I perceive that the Few embrace the AGW/climate change
concept as another opportunity for<br>
further concentration of wealth and concentration of
authority. Authority<br>
concentrated is the power to gain more and more
wealth.<br>
<br>
It is a pretty cool trick to harness the energies of
those who champion for the Many<br>
and pervert their activities into the service of the
goals of the Few. Predators<br>
have lotsa cool trix for snaring kids. Silly rabbi.<br>
<br>
Championing for a better environment is a lofty goal
and a desirable end. Thy keepers and owners hath<br>
not such ideals. They see every popular cause as a
ripe plumpness to be expertly massaged and milked<br>
for their benefit. Those with milk await the relief
of their burdens.<br>
<br>
Those in power care not for history, data, or ideals.
They dont give a frank fuck (a "wan, eitolated [sic]
damn",<br>
as "Fred Reed" noted) about you. But they are
certainly willing to (reluctantly) take on more and
more authority so<br>
that they can improve their own lives while creating
the illusion of improving yours.<br>
They really do care,more than you think, about what
you think.<br>
<br>
Hence war, hence too big to fail, hence bailouts (not
for us), hence a number of other<br>
evils too numinous to count.<br>
<br>
On 07/25/11 8:20, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E2CB6E4.70101@illinois.edu"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I don't think there's any doubt that there are
long-term climate changes, including warming and
cooling trends. And the historical record seems
clear that these trends have social effects. <br>
<br>
In Europe, the Medieval Warm Period (aka the
"Medieval Climate Optimum") - e.g, England was a
major wine-producer in in the 12th & 13th
centuries - was perhaps the most important factor in
the great cultural efflorescence of the High Middle
Ages. It was reversed by the climate changes of the
14th century (bad harvests, a Malthusian crisis, and
the conditions conducive to the spread of bubonic
plague), which brought the medieval mode of
production to an end and led to the rise of
capitalism.<br>
<br>
It's also agreed that the Little Ice Age was a
period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval
Warm Period. The term LIA was introduced by François
E. Matthes in 1939. It is conventionally defined as
a period extending from the 16th to the 19th
centuries. NASA considers the term to refer to a
cold period between 1550 CE and 1850 CE and notes
three particularly cold intervals: one beginning
about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in
1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.
<br>
<br>
It also seems that we're in the midst of another
warming trend. The question is whether it's
anthropogenic. Has industrialization added to what
may be a normal fluctuation? It would seem
reasonable, but it some sense it doesn't matter too
much: we need to control industrial pollution, the
externalities of industrial production, and that can
be done only by concerted government action.
Driving a Prius doesn't make much difference, but
neither does condemning the heretics who have turned
away from the great god AGW.<br>
<br>
Climatologists have only interpreted the world; the
task is to change it. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/24/11 6:15 PM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E2CA776.1090801@pigs.ag"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I dont think it's a conspiracy, I think that it is
Fraud.<br>
<br>
But thanks for the links.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/25/2011 7:02 AM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CE67411F-B641-4712-8EEA-2215E48B6C62@illinois.edu"
type="cite">Read the IPCC report, or its
summary. Another will be coming out soon. Here
are other sources, with data.
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/">http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are many others, but deniers like you
refuse to accept the scientific data and their
arguments. There is overwhelming consensus on
this from the climate/scientific community. It
is not a conspiracy. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And I have no idea what you are talking
about ("same cats") in your last paragraph.
It's nonsense. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--mkb</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 24, 2011, at 4:41 PM, E. Wayne
Johnson 朱稳森 wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Urbana is a completely unprotected
location on vast flat terrain<br>
with no buffering body of water nearby.<br>
<br>
There is good mixing of air with winds
coming from all directions.<br>
Urbana appears to be a reasonable
sample. <br>
<br>
Indeed it is only one point on the big
grid, but it has lots of data, <br>
and one should see <i>something</i> if
there is a major shift going on.<br>
<br>
After all, every cloudburst cyclone
heatwave dryspell and blizzard<br>
is the result of "climate change" if one
believes the media.<br>
<br>
Denier seems to suggest that belief in
AGW (like that in GWB) is a matter of
faith.<br>
I would rather say I am not a denier but
rather am unconvinced by the lack of<br>
a thread of evidence. All the warping
and woofing is not convincing me that <br>
it's not all made up of whole cloth.<br>
<br>
The fray is relevant here because those
same cats who gave us the endless war,<br>
the end of democracy, and
economic-financial terrorism want to
bring us <br>
embroidered eco-authoritarianism under
the cloak of some general good.<br>
<br>
They have a motive.<br>
<br>
Where's the data?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07/25/11 2:02, Morton K. Brussel
wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2D83C648-DE9C-4D08-88EC-CEC896EB8F9F@illinois.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It doesn't seem like anything dramatic is happening in these two plots, although they are somewhat hard for the interpretation of any trends, if any existed.
But the far more important point is that Urbana is but one point on the global map. No conclusions can be made from any one location. The global data on temperature and related events are conclusive that warming has been occurring, and, moreover, scientist studying the climate know there are physical reasons why.
I'm surprised you are (still?) a denier.
--Mort
On Jul 24, 2011, at 1:13 AM, E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森 wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Urbana is pretty much the center of the meterologic universe as judged by the meteorism that
typifies its city government. Thus it's temperature data can be used for global inferences about
climatic trends.
Urbana is the furthest northern point at which I ever domiciled, and I always felt as if there was nothing
between Urbana and the north pole except an ill-maintained barb-wire fence.
If there really were such a thing as global warming, it would have to be for the
benefit of Urbana's frozen few. The Urbana Water Survey has the daily temperature data
to tell for the asking all the way back to the Gay90's.
The plot below shows the daily minimum temperatures (T min)for
days below 10F (very cold days under my assumption of what is "cold").
<moz-screenshot-9.png>
My great-grandmother told me about the terrible winters of her childhood in the
late 19th century. 1977 and 1978 were truly awful for sure, but not the coldest it seems.
There might be some rough suggestion of periodicity, but one needs a few
hundred years more data to work it out clearly. The relatively mild winters
of the 1940 to 1970 were still pretty cold. One doesnt find any trend
suggesting a permanent reprieve from the ravages of those nasty Urbana winters.
*
The international media are suggesting that AGW is verified by the heat waves
that plague the United States. Below I present the incidence and intensity
of hot (>92F) days in Urbana. Keillor says that on really hot days the cats go to the basement
and put their feet in the air. Such data is not readily available and there could be many variables,
particularly since most cats dislike water, and do generate CO2 and other volatilities.
One has to make do with the available data.
<幻灯片1.JPG>
I was in-utero for most of 1954 but I don't recall my mother complaining about the heat,
although she did take me to the doctor because of my profuse perspiration which has
been a lifetime condition so far.
I have heard stories about 1936. A certain Mr. J.N. Irvin of Hamilton County
told me that it was so hot in 1936 that he and his brother used to dig
holes in the yard and sleep in the dust just to stay cool. The data supports his remembrance
and perhaps the behaviour as well. They didn't have electricity in Twigg Twp in '36
let alone AC or even Tang Dynasty fans for Anthropogenic Local Cooling.
They say that in Iowa it was so hot the children used to wet the bed to stay cool.
The inconvenient truth seems to be that there is no trend toward any sort of
warming as judged from Urbana other than the typical cycling progression of the seasons previously
observed by Enoch.
There is also a persistent lack of persistence of memory and maybe some soft clocks.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""> </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">This body part will be downloaded on demand.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>