Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [LandCafe] The debate continues

Expand Messages
  • Dan Sullivan
    ... Attributing bad weather, especially hurricanes and tornadoes, to the greenhouse effect is one of the great alarmist frauds. It not only has no scientific
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 21, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On 20 Sep 2007 at 21:21, Paul Metz wrote:

      > Harry,
      >
      > I wait for more votes, but do not see how you want to prevent deaths by the
      > weather in this Cafe.

      Attributing bad weather, especially hurricanes and tornadoes, to the
      greenhouse effect is one of the great alarmist frauds. It not only has no
      scientific consensus behind it, but flies in the face of long-established
      meteorological principles.

      There are two kinds of global warming. One caused by cyclical
      changes in solar activity, the earth's orbit and the earth's axial spin.
      This can be labelled the solar effect. The other is caused by changes in
      the atmospheres ability to insulate, which is the greenhouse effect.

      The solar effect tends to be much stronger at the equator than at the
      poles, and increases the temperature differentials between the equator
      and each pole. The greenhouse effect tends to reduce the temperature
      differentials between the equator and each pole.

      It is this differential between equatorial temperature and polar
      temperature that drives air currents. Thus an increase in the
      greenhouse effect would actually *reduce* the frequency and severity
      of hurricanes and tornados.

      There are other alarmist bugaboos that are not supported by hard
      science. For example, the prevailing scientific view is that global
      warming would raise ocean levels 2-3 feet at most, not the 20-50 feet
      depicted in Al Gore's junk-science movie. That scenario depends on
      the entire Antarctic ice cap melting, which is simply not going to
      happen. Once you get away from the oceans, Antarctica has a mean
      temperature of -42 F, -41 C. There is no way that will melt.

      Indeed, global warming tends to thicken the antarctic ice pack. This is
      because increased evaporation in warmer areas leads to increased
      snow over Antarctica.

      Gore also portrays polar bears going extinct when the arctic ice cap
      melts. This begs the question of why they did not go extinct during the
      Holocene Maximum, during which there was no arctic ice cap for
      almost 3,000 years.

      Global warming alarmism is based on what I call "hysterical
      substitution." That is, the alarmist take something that is true and then
      substitute something that sounds similar. This tactic works best when
      the intended effect is not rational analysis, but hysteria.

      For example, there is indeed consensus that the earth has been getting
      warmer. The big lie in this regard is that the opponents of alarmism
      deny that it is getting warmer. (The few who do are well outside the
      mainstream of GW skeptics.) The earth has been getting warmer since
      the mid 1800s, with an exception between 1946 and 1972, when
      temperatures began dropping almost as fast as they had been rising.

      This "global cooling" period was quite real. One of the dominant
      theories behind it was that we were causing global cooling by
      industrial pollution of another kind, particulates. Whether that is true
      or not, temperatures rebounded after 1972 and began rising faster than
      ever. However, if you chart the rise in temperatures from the mid
      1800s to 1946, and then extrapolate that line to the present time, you
      will see that we are still cooler than such an extrapolation would have
      predicted.

      This brings up another hysterical substitution with regard to
      consensus. There is indeed a consensus that industry has been putting
      CO2 into the air, and also a consensus that CO2 contributes, at least in
      a small way, to the greenhouse effect and hence to global warming.
      This is a far cry from consensus that industrial CO2 is "causing"
      global warming, which is what the hysterical substituters claim. There
      is not even consensus that it is a primary contributor to global
      warming, but only that, logically, it must be making some kind of
      difference.

      Other alarmist bugaboos are that global warming causes drought,
      when scientific consensus is just the opposite. That is, global warming
      causes increased evaporation and therefore increased rainfall. Any
      change in weather patterns can cause drought in some localities and
      end drought in others, but the overall effect of global warming is more
      rain. During the ice ages, which constitute over 90% of the past half-
      million years, the earth was not only much colder, but also much
      drier. There were no rain forests during the ice ages.

      Perhaps the biggest bugaboo at all is the unspoken lie that the earth
      has ever had stable temperatures. Analysis of antarctic ice core
      samples and of Sargasso Sea sediment indicates that the earth's
      temperature has been in a state of wild fluctuation for at least the past
      300,000 years.

      Just 12,000 years ago, all of Canada and the entire northern tier of
      states in the United States were under the arctic ice cap (except for
      high mountains, which were nonetheless frozen over). A few miles to
      the west of my house in Pittsburgh, the Ohio River was forced
      southward by the arctic cap. Luckily for us, something caused all that
      to change, ending the Neolithic period, i.e., the final stage of the Stone
      Age. The other two advances in human technology also coincided
      with short breaks between ice ages.

      Something caused global warming to make the earth hospitable to life
      generally and to mankind particularly. I can't be certain, but I would
      bet it wasn't industrial CO2.

      -ds


      .
    • Paul Metz
      Dear friends and/or colleagues, You can also discuss genetic engineering, biodiversity depletion, the many wars in the world and much more. I believe, however,
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 22, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear friends and/or colleagues,
         
        You can also discuss genetic engineering, biodiversity depletion, the many wars in the world and much more.
        I believe, however, that in this Landcafe we try to discuss land rent and its fairer distribution.
         
        When a connection with global warming or other debates can be made, fine. But debating other issues as such, not here please.
         
        Paul Metz


        From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø [mailto:peter@...]
        Sent: zaterdag 22 september 2007 2:10
        To: landtheory@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Ottawa'; 'LandCafe'; 'Future'; Paul Metz
        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: LT: The debate continues

        Very well put, Dan.

        I will offer my opinions on global warming at a later time. Suffice to say for now, I do not believe it (human-made global warming) is made-up, but it IS blown-up by the scaremongers. The existence of a problem does not dictate one single course of action. There are several, but what we must choose... I'm not sure.

        More later.

        --
        vh, Peter Perlsø - web: http://titancity.com - tel: +45  2685 5909 - Skype: neglesaks


        "I BELIEVE THAT LIBERTY IS THE ONLY GENUINELY VALUABLE THING THAT MEN HAVE INVENTED, AT LEAST IN THE FIELD OF GOVERNMENT, IN A THOUSAND YEARS. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO BE FREE THAN TO BE NOT FREE, EVEN WHEN THE FORMER IS DANGEROUS AND THE LATTER SAFE. I BELIEVE THAT THE FINEST QUALITIES OF MAN CAN FLOURISH ONLY IN FREE AIR - THAT PROGRESS MADE UNDER THE SHADOW OF THE POLICEMAN'S CLUB IS FALSE PROGRESS, AND OF NO PERMANENT VALUE. I BELIEVE THAT ANY MAN WHO TAKES THE LIBERTY OF ANOTHER INTO HIS KEEPING IS BOUND TO BECOME A TYRANT, AND THAT ANY MAN WHO YIELDS UP HIS LIBERTY, IN HOWEVER SLIGHT THE MEASURE, IS BOUND TO BECOME A SLAVE."

        -- HENRY LOUIS MENCKEN (1880-1956)



        On Sep 21, 2007, at 21.19 , Dan Sullivan wrote:

        On 20 Sep 2007 at 12:38, Paul Metz wrote:

        Dan, 

        What if pollution rights are auctioned and the revenue paid to 
        citizens,
        like they do in Alaska ? 

        Then privilege is gone, cost of pollution will be in the prices, 
        citizens
        are rewarded for not polluting and a good EPA can manage the level 
        of
        pollution. 

        That would be an excellent solution, but advancing that solution 
        involves taking on the hysteria-mongering corporate 
        environmentalists. Their agenda is to convert polluting into property 
        rights. Part of the strategy is to make global warming seem so terribly 
        urgent that we will not hold out for the right solutions, but will be so 
        worked up that we will accept virtually any solution.

        -ds






        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

        <*> Your email settings:
            Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
            (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:


      • Harry Pollard
        Paul, As you probably know I regard the economic consequences of LVT far more important than its revenue. Of your three subjects, both biodiversity depletion
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 27, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          Paul,

           

          As you probably know I regard the economic consequences of LVT far more important than its revenue.

           

          Of your three subjects, both biodiversity depletion and war are very much the result of poor land tenure.

           

          Bertrand Russell said quite clearly that all wars are fought over land – no matter the supposed reason. The best way to destroy the habitats is to allow our cities inefficiently to sprawl across the countryside.

           

          There again, land monopoly keeping land unused and unavailable forces people to go into the rain forests and other virgin territory looking for a place to settle – even as Brazil,, for example has an area about the size of western Europe virtually unused.

           

          Harry

           

          ******************************

          Harry Pollard

          Henry George School of Los Angeles

          Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042

          818 352-4141

          ******************************

           

          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Metz
          Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:12 AM
          To: 'Peter Bjørn Perlsø'; landtheory@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Ottawa'; 'LandCafe'; 'Future'
          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: LT: The debate continues

           

          Dear friends and/or colleagues,

           

          You can also discuss genetic engineering, biodiversity depletion, the many wars in the world and much more.

          I believe, however, that in this Landcafe we try to discuss land rent and its fairer distribution.

           

          When a connection with global warming or other debates can be made, fine. But debating other issues as such, not here please.

           

          Paul Metz

           


          From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø [mailto:peter@...]
          Sent: zaterdag 22 september 2007 2:10
          To: landtheory@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Ottawa'; 'LandCafe'; 'Future'; Paul Metz
          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: LT: The debate continues

          Very well put, Dan.

           

          I will offer my opinions on global warming at a later time. Suffice to say for now, I do not believe it (human-made global warming) is made-up, but it IS blown-up by the scaremongers. The existence of a problem does not dictate one single course of action. There are several, but what we must choose... I'm not sure.

           

          More later.

           

          --

          vh, Peter Perlsø - web: http://titancity.com - tel: +45  2685 5909 - Skype: neglesaks

           

          "I BELIEVE THAT LIBERTY IS THE ONLY GENUINELY VALUABLE THING THAT MEN HAVE INVENTED, AT LEAST IN THE FIELD OF GOVERNMENT, IN A THOUSAND YEARS. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO BE FREE THAN TO BE NOT FREE, EVEN WHEN THE FORMER IS DANGEROUS AND THE LATTER SAFE. I BELIEVE THAT THE FINEST QUALITIES OF MAN CAN FLOURISH ONLY IN FREE AIR - THAT PROGRESS MADE UNDER THE SHADOW OF THE POLICEMAN'S CLUB IS FALSE PROGRESS, AND OF NO PERMANENT VALUE. I BELIEVE THAT ANY MAN WHO TAKES THE LIBERTY OF ANOTHER INTO HIS KEEPING IS BOUND TO BECOME A TYRANT, AND THAT ANY MAN WHO YIELDS UP HIS LIBERTY, IN HOWEVER SLIGHT THE MEASURE, IS BOUND TO BECOME A SLAVE."

          -- HENRY LOUIS MENCKEN (1880-1956)



           

          On Sep 21, 2007, at 21.19 , Dan Sullivan wrote:



          On 20 Sep 2007 at 12:38, Paul Metz wrote:

           

          Dan, 

           

          What if pollution rights are auctioned and the revenue paid to 

          citizens,

          like they do in Alaska ? 

           

          Then privilege is gone, cost of pollution will be in the prices, 

          citizens

          are rewarded for not polluting and a good EPA can manage the level 

          of

          pollution. 

           

          That would be an excellent solution, but advancing that solution 

          involves taking on the hysteria-mongering corporate 

          environmentalists. Their agenda is to convert polluting into property 

          rights. Part of the strategy is to make global warming seem so terribly 

          urgent that we will not hold out for the right solutions, but will be so 

          worked up that we will accept virtually any solution.

           

          -ds

           

           

           

           

           

           

          Yahoo! Groups Links

           

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

           

          <*> Your email settings:

              Individual Email | Traditional

           

          <*> To change settings online go to:

              (Yahoo! ID required)

           

          <*> To change settings via email:

           

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

           

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

           

           

           

          Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/1001 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 1:37 PM


          Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/1001 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 1:37 PM

        • Paul Metz
          Harry, I appreciate you also prefer us to focus on LVT. We fully agree, I did not start other issues. But: land should not exclude other natural resources from
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 28, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Harry,
             
            I appreciate you also prefer us to focus on LVT. We fully agree, I did not start other issues.
            But: land should not exclude other natural resources from correct pricing, if necessary through taxation.
             
            Paul


            From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard
            Sent: donderdag 27 september 2007 19:09
            To: 'Paul Metz'; 'Peter Bjørn Perlsø'; landtheory@yahoogroups.com; LandCafe
            Cc: Dan; eric.britton@...
            Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: LT: The debate continues

            Paul,

            As you probably know I regard the economic consequences of LVT far more important than its revenue.

            Of your three subjects, both biodiversity depletion and war are very much the result of poor land tenure.

            Bertrand Russell said quite clearly that all wars are fought over land – no matter the supposed reason. The best way to destroy the habitats is to allow our cities inefficiently to sprawl across the countryside.

            There again, land monopoly keeping land unused and unavailable forces people to go into the rain forests and other virgin territory looking for a place to settle – even as Brazil,, for example has an area about the size of western Europe virtually unused.

            Harry

            ************ ********* *********

            Harry Pollard

            Henry George School of Los Angeles

            Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042

            818 352-4141

            ************ ********* *********

            From: LandCafe@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:LandCafe@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Paul Metz
            Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:12 AM
            To: 'Peter Bjørn Perlsø'; landtheory@yahoogro ups.com
            Cc: 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Ottawa'; 'LandCafe'; 'Future'
            Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: LT: The debate continues

            Dear friends and/or colleagues,

            You can also discuss genetic engineering, biodiversity depletion, the many wars in the world and much more.

            I believe, however, that in this Landcafe we try to discuss land rent and its fairer distribution.

            When a connection with global warming or other debates can be made, fine. But debating other issues as such, not here please.

            Paul Metz


            From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø [mailto:peter@ macplanet. dk]
            Sent: zaterdag 22 september 2007 2:10
            To: landtheory@yahoogro ups.com
            Cc: 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Ottawa'; 'LandCafe'; 'Future'; Paul Metz
            Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: LT: The debate continues

            Very well put, Dan.

            I will offer my opinions on global warming at a later time. Suffice to say for now, I do not believe it (human-made global warming) is made-up, but it IS blown-up by the scaremongers. The existence of a problem does not dictate one single course of action. There are several, but what we must choose... I'm not sure.

            More later.

            --

            vh, Peter Perlsø - web: http://titancity. com - tel: +45  2685 5909 - Skype: neglesaks

            "I BELIEVE THAT LIBERTY IS THE ONLY GENUINELY VALUABLE THING THAT MEN HAVE INVENTED, AT LEAST IN THE FIELD OF GOVERNMENT, IN A THOUSAND YEARS. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO BE FREE THAN TO BE NOT FREE, EVEN WHEN THE FORMER IS DANGEROUS AND THE LATTER SAFE. I BELIEVE THAT THE FINEST QUALITIES OF MAN CAN FLOURISH ONLY IN FREE AIR - THAT PROGRESS MADE UNDER THE SHADOW OF THE POLICEMAN'S CLUB IS FALSE PROGRESS, AND OF NO PERMANENT VALUE. I BELIEVE THAT ANY MAN WHO TAKES THE LIBERTY OF ANOTHER INTO HIS KEEPING IS BOUND TO BECOME A TYRANT, AND THAT ANY MAN WHO YIELDS UP HIS LIBERTY, IN HOWEVER SLIGHT THE MEASURE, IS BOUND TO BECOME A SLAVE."

            -- HENRY LOUIS MENCKEN (1880-1956)



            On Sep 21, 2007, at 21.19 , Dan Sullivan wrote:



            On 20 Sep 2007 at 12:38, Paul Metz wrote:

            Dan, 

            What if pollution rights are auctioned and the revenue paid to 

            citizens,

            like they do in Alaska ? 

            Then privilege is gone, cost of pollution will be in the prices, 

            citizens

            are rewarded for not polluting and a good EPA can manage the level 

            of

            pollution. 

            That would be an excellent solution, but advancing that solution 

            involves taking on the hysteria-mongering corporate 

            environmentalists. Their agenda is to convert polluting into property 

            rights. Part of the strategy is to make global warming seem so terribly 

            urgent that we will not hold out for the right solutions, but will be so 

            worked up that we will accept virtually any solution.

            -ds

            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

            <*> Your email settings:

                Individual Email | Traditional

            <*> To change settings online go to:

                (Yahoo! ID required)

            <*> To change settings via email:

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

            Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/1001 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 1:37 PM


            Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/1001 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 1:37 PM

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.