Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

In sci.astro.amateur message , Thu, 16
Oct
2008 07:14:43, Paul Schlyter posted:
In article 6hxJk.334622$TT4.282639@attbi_s22,
Sam Wormley wrote:
Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would
be of the order of several billion years instead of a mere 105 thousand
years.

I think you exaggerate, slightly.

Earth goes around Sol in one year, at about 500 light-seconds; Sirius
and Procyon are at about 10 * 31e6 light-seconds. Other things being
equal, T is proportional to R^1.5. That gives me just under half a
billion years, to be reduced because S & P are heavier.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
Mail: or (better) via Home Page at
Web: URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|

On Oct 18, 3:16*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,



wrote:

Wrong! *Don't be so ignorant.... *ocean ice melting won't raise the
sea level at all - because that ice already is in the water. *Therefore
the ice cap around the North Pole melting won't raise the ocean. *What
will raise the sea level is when glaciers on land melts. *The biggest
glacier on land is of course the ices of Antarctica. *The second biggest
is Greenland, although that one is much smaller than the one in Antarctica.

In fact, the ocean water level rise was hardly measurable--what
happened? Did the Southern ice cap grow by a similar or larger amount
possibly?

If a "scientific theory" can't be empirically tested or it can't make
measurable predictions, it is sort of worthless, isn't it?

If this was just a "scientific theory" it would be easy, although
somewhat time consuming, to test empirically: just continue as before,
and see and measure what happens!

However, this is more than just a test of a scientific theory. *It is
also a likely catastrophy. *Which means the price to test this
scientific theory is too high. *Or would you be willing to probably have
your home flooded, just to test this theory? *If not, why do you demand
millions and millions of others living in many coastal cities around the
world to take that risk?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

You can't be unaware of the FACT that the Southern ice cap has been
GROWING in recent years. Are you simply dishonest?

And the notion that any sea level rise will occur virtually overnight
producing coastal flooding" is laughable and pathetic--you can't be
that dumb, can you?

On Oct 17, 6:06*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:44:23 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
"Probably", "almost certainly", etc--are you trying to describe an
unproven theory or, even worse, a computer model with many
questionable assumptions?

There's no such thing as a proven theory. "Probably" and "almost
certainly" are entirely correct (and skeptical) ways of describing
theories that have a substantial body of evidence supporting them. Terms
like that mean that theories should be taken seriously. It doesn't mean
they are fact.

We have an option to take actions that will reduce the negative impact
of climate change that we're probably causing. And we have nothing to
lose, as switching away from petroleum, and requiring that coal plants
sequester all CO2, can only result in a huge boost to our economy. And
if it prevents civilization from collapsing along the way (a very real
possibility, IMO), so much the better!
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

You really don't understand economics at all. Those "remedies" you put
forth are very expensive and certainly will not provide a "huge boost
to the economy".

"Civilization on the verge of collapse"--spoken like a true clueless
mountain man--do you live off the grid too?

And you persist in using weasel words like "probably",
"substantially", etc to justify spending trillions of dollars.

What do you propose to do with China who is averaging a new coal fired
power plant a day? Exempt them as Kyoto proposed?

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:47:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You really don't understand economics at all. Those "remedies" you put
forth are very expensive and certainly will not provide a "huge boost
to the economy".

I understand economics well enough to know that expensive remedies do
not necessarily hurt the economy. Our current energy solution is a large
part of what's trashing our economy. The technology that can replace it
is of incredible value. The side-effects of the development process
alone could be huge.

We never made a penny off the billions spent on the Apollo program, yet
it dramatically boosted our economy over time.


"Civilization on the verge of collapse"--spoken like a true clueless
mountain man--do you live off the grid too?

You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; at the least, its highly
uncivil. Or maybe you simply lack the education to understand the role
of quotes in English. What's it going to be... uncivil and libelous, or
uneducated and stupid? Decisions, decisions.

What I said was that the collapse of civilization [from climate change]
is a very real possibility. That's a very different statement than what
you have attributed to me. Civilizations _have_ collapsed due to climate
shift: the Mayans (possibly by their own actions), the Anasazi, ancient
Greenlanders, and others. Modern societies in Africa have arguably
devolved to barbarism because of environmental strains. A tiny little
event called Katrina reduced a small region of the U.S. to uncivilized
behavior for a time, and produced huge financial effects that continue
to impact our economy. Imagine if it had been Miami, or even several
cities on the East Coast? Civilization is fragile; governments fall
easily when economies fail. Even faster when food supplies fail.

There is no doubt- no doubt at all- that the collapse of civilization is
a possibility that comes with global climate change. Nobody can put an
accurate number to the likelihood that this will happen; right now it's
probably a small number. But the ramifications are so negative that only
a fool would ignore the possibility.


And you persist in using weasel words like "probably",
"substantially", etc to justify spending trillions of dollars.

I persist in using _honest_ words like "probably" and "substantially".
When it comes to something as uncertain as climate change, I wouldn't
trust anybody who put things into absolutes.


What do you propose to do with China who is averaging a new coal fired
power plant a day? Exempt them as Kyoto proposed?

Nothing. I have no control over China. And it doesn't matter, because if
we develop alternate energy sources (and ways of removing carbon from
coal plant emissions), we'll own the world economy. Everyone else will
follow.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:46:26 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You can't be unaware of the FACT that the Southern ice cap has been
GROWING in recent years. Are you simply dishonest?

More absolutes.

Measuring the volume of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica is
extremely difficult. Most data is satellite derived, from altimetry and
ground penetrating radar.

The bulk of evidence suggests that the Antarctic is losing more ice than
it is gaining. Measuring this is made especially difficult because the
ice is growing in parts of the continent, and being lost in others. The
effects on sea level are even harder to work out, because the floating
ice shelves (which are indisputably being lost at a high rate) are fresh
water, which results in some sea level rise. This is why arctic ice
melting also produces some sea level rise.

The point is, this is all very complicated (and well worth what we are
investing in its study). And the data collected so far isn't very good
news for coastal communities over the next century or two.


And the notion that any sea level rise will occur virtually overnight
producing coastal flooding" is laughable and pathetic--you can't be
that dumb, can you?

Who said anything about "overnight"? The ocean has risen over the last
century, and we're paying a price for it now. An inch or two is all it
takes to make the difference between minor damage and near total
destruction from a storm surge. The ocean doesn't have to physically
rise over your house for it to have a major impact on you if you're
living on a coastline.

The most conservative models predict a sea level rise over the next
century of the better part of a meter. And a wise planner doesn't bet on
the most conservative estimate. It is near certainty that many coastal
areas are facing serious problems from ocean level increases in the near
future.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 18, 10:32*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:47:31 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
You really don't understand economics at all. Those "remedies" you put
forth are very expensive and certainly will not provide a "huge boost
to the economy".

I understand economics well enough to know that expensive remedies do
not necessarily hurt the economy. Our current energy solution is a large
part of what's trashing our economy. The technology that can replace it
is of incredible value. The side-effects of the development process
alone could be huge.

We never made a penny off the billions spent on the Apollo program, yet
it dramatically boosted our economy over time.

"Civilization on the verge of collapse"--spoken like a true clueless
mountain man--do you live off the grid too?

You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; at the least, its highly
uncivil. Or maybe you simply lack the education to understand the role
of quotes in English. What's it going to be... uncivil and libelous, or
uneducated and stupid? Decisions, decisions.

What I said was that the collapse of civilization [from climate change]
is a very real possibility. That's a very different statement than what
you have attributed to me. Civilizations _have_ collapsed due to climate
shift: the Mayans (possibly by their own actions), the Anasazi, ancient
Greenlanders, and others. Modern societies in Africa have arguably
devolved to barbarism because of environmental strains. A tiny little
event called Katrina reduced a small region of the U.S. to uncivilized
behavior for a time, and produced huge financial effects that continue
to impact our economy. Imagine if it had been Miami, or even several
cities on the East Coast? Civilization is fragile; governments fall
easily when economies fail. Even faster when food supplies fail.

There is no doubt- no doubt at all- that the collapse of civilization is
a possibility that comes with global climate change. Nobody can put an
accurate number to the likelihood that this will happen; right now it's
probably a small number. But the ramifications are so negative that only
a fool would ignore the possibility.

And you persist in using weasel words like "probably",
"substantially", etc to justify spending trillions of dollars.

I persist in using _honest_ words like "probably" and "substantially".
When it comes to something as uncertain as climate change, I wouldn't
trust anybody who put things into absolutes.

What do you propose to do with China who is averaging a new coal fired
power plant a day? Exempt them as Kyoto proposed?

Nothing. I have no control over China. And it doesn't matter, because if
we develop alternate energy sources (and ways of removing carbon from
coal plant emissions), we'll own the world economy. Everyone else will
follow.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

incredibly naive

On Oct 18, 4:32*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:47:31 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
You really don't understand economics at all. Those "remedies" you put
forth are very expensive and certainly will not provide a "huge boost
to the economy".

I understand economics well enough to know that expensive remedies do
not necessarily hurt the economy. Our current energy solution is a large
part of what's trashing our economy. The technology that can replace it
is of incredible value. The side-effects of the development process
alone could be huge.

We never made a penny off the billions spent on the Apollo program, yet
it dramatically boosted our economy over time.

"Civilization on the verge of collapse"--spoken like a true clueless
mountain man--do you live off the grid too?

You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; at the least, its highly
uncivil. Or maybe you simply lack the education to understand the role
of quotes in English. What's it going to be... uncivil and libelous, or
uneducated and stupid? Decisions, decisions.




You traffic in astrology and artificial premises and conclusions for
the Earth's daily rotational and orbital motions making you unfit to
discuss anything remotely relating to climate and you can take that to
the group here or any court,it does not alter the fact that the wider
population requires your kind to quietly disappear in order for
competent individuals to handle astronomical affairs and the linkage
to climate,geology and the multitude of other subjects that remain
unattended because of the dominance of people with astrological minds
such as yourself.

No point in calling you incompetent,stupid and dangerous,the things
you believe with basic astronomical facts speak for themselves and it
is hardly the affair of a civil court to deal with empiricism and
stupidity for both are synonymous,at least in astronomical affairs.















What I said was that the collapse of civilization [from climate change]
is a very real possibility. That's a very different statement than what
you have attributed to me. Civilizations _have_ collapsed due to climate
shift: the Mayans (possibly by their own actions), the Anasazi, ancient
Greenlanders, and others. Modern societies in Africa have arguably
devolved to barbarism because of environmental strains. A tiny little
event called Katrina reduced a small region of the U.S. to uncivilized
behavior for a time, and produced huge financial effects that continue
to impact our economy. Imagine if it had been Miami, or even several
cities on the East Coast? Civilization is fragile; governments fall
easily when economies fail. Even faster when food supplies fail.

There is no doubt- no doubt at all- that the collapse of civilization is
a possibility that comes with global climate change. Nobody can put an
accurate number to the likelihood that this will happen; right now it's
probably a small number. But the ramifications are so negative that only
a fool would ignore the possibility.

And you persist in using weasel words like "probably",
"substantially", etc to justify spending trillions of dollars.

I persist in using _honest_ words like "probably" and "substantially".
When it comes to something as uncertain as climate change, I wouldn't
trust anybody who put things into absolutes.

What do you propose to do with China who is averaging a new coal fired
power plant a day? Exempt them as Kyoto proposed?

Nothing. I have no control over China. And it doesn't matter, because if
we develop alternate energy sources (and ways of removing carbon from
coal plant emissions), we'll own the world economy. Everyone else will
follow.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 17, 7:44 am, "
wrote:

Mass starvation? BS. The temperate climate regions best suited for
crops will simply move North to Canada and Siberia.

Not very familiar with the fact that the world is divided into lots of
little nation states, with their own immigration policies, are you?
Sure, the U.S. would be able to feed itself by importing food from
Canada, but lots of people in small poor countries in the tropics are
likely to starve when the rich countries have enough trouble taking
care of themselves.

John Savard

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:28:08 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote, in part:

I have never said that. I believe I said something along the lines that
an entire species of some birds is more valuable than some (unspecified)
number of individual human lives. You're welcome to disagree, but I
don't think my position is extreme or unusual.

That is ridiculous.

One human life is (intrinsically) more valuable than ANY amount of money
or material things. This category, of course, includes pets, livestock,
and wild animals.

It is true that in our world, there is not enough food to feed everyone,
and so enough money to save more than one life is too valuable to spend
on saving only one life somewhere else. This is practical value rather
than intrinsic value.

Thus, since many humans would die if, say, ants or earthworms became
extinct, these species have greater practical value (but not greater
intrinsic value) than a human life.

To assign a mere thing higher intrinsic value than a human being is
idolatry.

The situation where things compete with human beings in practical value
is a bad situation, one which we should try to remedy. This is done, for
example, by increasing the power and resources available to humanity, so
that less conflict exists between human survival and the sources of that
survival.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Sure, the U.S. would be able to feed itself by importing food from
Canada...

That's expensive. In the end, the easiest solution might just be to
invade Canada. Who would stop us? Just another minor adjustment in
borders. History is full of them.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com