It just shows that we don't know really what is going on and a little  
humility from those scientists that seem so sure is in order.


On 26 Nov 2009, at 22:56, russell_c wrote:

> Actually I think the Ice Age has it ... and this is just the warm  
> introduction before the 'rains' start to fall. Time Magazine (1974)  
> did an Ice Age story (,9171,944914,00.html 
> ). Very similar style of writing to what we read today.
> In my more 'visioning' moments I see, 200 years out, some  
> 'Gubornator' character called Arnie pressing the Total Recall   
> button and huge CO2 spouts erupting from the Carbon banks  
> sequestrated with great foresight at the turn of the millennium.
> (
> Of course CSIRAC will be the only computer left still operating by  
> then!
> rc
> (The Futurist)
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Frank Wood <[log in to unmask] 
> > wrote:
> Also re: formerly predicted ice age, it is now noticed that in the  
> arctic the ice is actually advancing again! And it's not helpful  
> when some of the environmentalists dismiss this as an "exception".
> Very cheering to see more physicists beginning to question the  
> global warming scam. It's being the marketeers' dream especially the  
> Carbon Footprint campaign which has made many many people very rich.
> It would definitely be better to design societies that can respond  
> flexibly to global warming or another ice age. Of course another ice  
> age would be the ultimate challenge that would make global warming  
> infinitely preferable.
> Frank
> On 26 Nov 2009, at 21:27, Nick Green wrote:
> Thanks Stuart. It has tied down von Foerster's contribution for me.
> But Frank's point about greater energy consumption per capita is  
> well made. At least everyone is focussed on low energy solutions  
> these days.
> It seems churlish to go on about the misperceived evils of carbon  
> dioxide but not inappropriate now America has made a decision to get  
> involved- to adopt the Precautionary Principle.
> Few physicist friends seem impressed by the science behind Global  
> Warming. Now Freeman Dyson can be added to that list. Pask had no  
> time for the Greens' "claptrap" as he was heard to say once. At the  
> time I was happily working on a contract for Greenpeace to improve  
> electrical chemical analysis methods and the "clouds are the thing"  
> position came out of precipitation and albino discussions. Recall  
> also in the sixties, based on astro/geo data, climatologists had us  
> entering a new ice age. Today some say ice cores show temp increase  
> preceding CO2 increase.
> Tremendous irony, though, for vegetarian pacifist friends who see  
> their campaign for conservation taken up by the military to produce  
> a solar from space solution (as per the Next 100 years scenario).  
> Friedman will have beamed microwaves as the means of transmission  
> (which may heat the atmosphere to some extent). For work in space  
> surely a space elevator is the real answer. It might heat less and  
> calculations on a tapered cable show perfection of long carbon  
> nanotubes, as current costing fashions dictate, may not be  
> necessary. All I can say is thank heavens this work is all in public.
> Incidentally Pask's "no causality can be proved within circularity"  
> can be made tractable in considering the products of concurrent  
> homeostatic processes. Applicable design rules from his theory  
> haven't emerged yet.
> Best
> N.
> PS
> One of Lovelock's famine cards is the decrease of productivity in a  
> warm ocean. We now know most biomass is microbial and sub microbial.  
> Considering the facile exchange of DNA at this level surely an  
> adaptation in the primary food chain would not be long in coming if  
> needed.
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Stuart Umpleby" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:29 PM
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The Next 100 Years (CSIRAC)
> Heinz von Foerster published an article on world population in Science
> magazine in 1960, 8 years before Paul Ehrlich's book The Population
> Bomb.  It generated a VERY entertaining exchange of letters in
> Science.  See
> Currently world population is growing at about 80 million a year.  The
> Economist recently had a cover story saying that growth rates are
> declining rapidly.
> Heinz's point was that about 2026 will be a time of instability in the
> relationship between human beings and the environment.  According to
> the World 3 model from the Club of Rome (1972), about 2025 will mark a
> transition from rising to falling world population.  I have heard
> people in Washington, DC, say that the Club of Rome models are invalid
> because their predictions did not come true, but the turning point is
> still 15 years (approximately) in the future.  I think the models have
> held up pretty well.
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Frank Wood <[log in to unmask] 
> > wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> someone whose name I can't remember has had his writings on  
> overpopulation
> revived and people now are listening to him.
> Birth *rate* might be declining but unfortunately that the  
> population is
> still rising. And the means more and more resources being used up  
> and if you
> subscribe to the greenhouse gas stuff then that means more humans  
> emitting
> co2 more livestock to feed those humans which means more methane being
> produced and so on. It doesn't seem that those authorities have  
> keyed the
> above factors in.
> Frank
> On 25 Nov 2009, at 20:57, Nick Green wrote:
> Hi Russell, Doug, Frank
> Well happy birthday to CSIRAC. Of course joules per bit were  
> enormous then
> and we are working on the single electron transistor .i.e everyone is
> working on low power if only because batteries cannot improve much and
> everybody wants long life viable mobile devices.
> On population people are saying that birth rate decline is pretty well
> universal but freedom of choice in this is denied by the Pope and  
> Muslims
> which is certainly not politically correct. As it happens nobody,  
> even the
> devotees, pays much attention to them on this but there is an
> unsustainable fuss about it. Note also some authorities are  
> comfortable with
> a world population of 1000 billion. We don't all live in Japan or  
> London -
> recall Marchetti "A check on the earth-carrying capacity for man"-  
> given out
> at Cwarel Isaf 2? Didn't somebody once say we could all live on the  
> Isle of
> Wight if suitably packed?
> On Enron, Doug check out SuperFreakonomics- apparently they were  
> open about
> what they were doing within financial reporting laws anyway. The Big  
> Six
> auditors are right - nobody understands company accounts. Lay's 25  
> year
> sentence in high security (i.e. vicious prison) seems excessive to  
> Levitt
> and Dubner.
> But take this on board. CO2 has had a bad rap. It's regarded as a  
> poison.
> It's not: it's the basis of all the food we eat. So eat more and  
> save the
> planet? Water and clouds are far more influential on climate and  
> your own
> CSIRO sustainability group  found a small increase in cloud cover  
> would put
> climate back in recent range. On air conditioning hmm- there are  
> better
> ways....
> Trouble is we don't understand cloud homeostasis. Recently CSIRO  
> reported
> aerobacter aerogenes (a bacterium from tree leaves) might be  
> important in
> seeding clouds for rain.
> But you are right Russell this is nothing to do with Friedman's  The  
> Next
> 100 Years. No climate wars just trade wars and the superstitions of  
> the poor
> exploited by a frightened risk averse elite. There may be many  
> faults in his
> approach one is that he doesn't factor in improved education and
> control from the web (where luck is not the product of propitiating  
> the Gods
> but measuring the variance) or improved (democratic) accountability.  
> Also in
> the robotized wars Friedman forecasts (Turkey vs Poland, Japan vs  
> America)
> casualties will not be high.  Fanciful maybe, fascinating certainly  
> but we
> must consider possible scenarios. Homeostasis is a stern mistress  
> and, says
> Pask, because of the circular nature causality cannot be proved. A  
> naive
> science reduces us to superstition but at least we get a familiarity  
> with
> the tools of good science.
> Best
> N.
> From: Frank Wood
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 6:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Next 100 Years (CSIRAC)
> Not to mention that overpopulation is and will be a major cause of
> environmental degradation.  But of course it's non PC to talk about
> population control.
> Frank
> On 25 Nov 2009, at 12:00, russell_c wrote:
> Nick
> I'm not sure this is on topic, but this CSIRAC story (below) came  
> through
> today and caused me to reflect on a comment (by Staford I think?)  
> that "they
> will find the cause" to a major US power outage (a $2.50 relay?).
> Why are we blaming climate change causes on CO2 when the energy  
> increases
> have a lot to do with the complexities related to power station  
> upgrades
> needed for PC proliferation, building air-conditioning capacity  
> increases,
> flat plasma screens and additional housing demand due to family  
> break down
> etc.
> In respect to heat and power production -- are there any estimates  
> of the
> energy generation involved in the growth of ICT and Internet over  
> the 60
> years from when this machine came to be? (there is a picture with  
> the story)
> Is this technology phenomena equally the cause of climate change and  
> can it
> be somehow statistically correlated to CO2 increases?
> Russell
> Australia's first 'iPod' marks 60th birthday
> "The CSIRAC - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research  
> organisation
> Automatic Computer - is housed in the state's museum and has today  
> been
> granted heritage listing as part of its birthday celebrations.
> It is the first computer ever to be made in Australia; the fourth  
> computer
> ever to be made in the world; and the only first generation computer  
> that
> remains intact. . . ."
> [snip]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
> more information go to: For the Metaphorum  
> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: 
>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - 
>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - 
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more information go to:

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at -