From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:57:05 GMT
Summary: None so blind as those who say, then deny...

In article <1992Dec16.051524.2786@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
> 
> >In article <92347.033853MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> >> In article <1992Dec12.023549.763@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com
> >> (harold.r.holm) says:
> >> 
> >> Oh, boy. This one was a real humdinger...
> >> 
> >> >In article <1992Nov28.200433.27906@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu    k
> >> >>
> >> >> What on earth are you talking about. The unusually cold summer was
> >> >> acurately PREDICTED by several leading atmospheric scientists. The
> >> >> reason is simple. Ashe from Mt. Pinatubo shielding the earth from the
> >> >> sun. However, these scientists also said that this effect will be short
> >> >> lived (after all the ashe does eventually wash out) and it will back to
> >> >> business as usual with temperatures going back on an upward trend,
> >> >> which they have been on for over 100 years.
> >> 
> >> >So, once the ash washes out of the atmosphere, global warming goes
> >> >right on its merry way, never to be interrupted again??
> 
> I missed your ignorant rebuttal to my comments as it apparently was followed
> up to a newsgroup which I do not read. At any rate, Mark quite adequately
> brought out the point that I never said that somehow Mt. Pinatubo was some
> kind of freak of nature and that nothing else could ever effect the process
> known as "global warming". Read on, McDuff.
> 
No......sir, it was followed up to the newsgroup I viewed it in, which is
this newsgroup I am posting in now, alt.rush-limbaugh.  I reviewed it, saved
it, and printed it out.  I cover my tracks in that respect, sir, and that
leads me to conclude that it may well have been cross-posted.  Which is
really irrelevant at this point in time, anyway.  That being the case, 
shall we continue.....?

> >> Clue: who said it wouldn't be interrupted again? Reading the quoted
> >> text very carefully I saw no assertion that there would be no more
> >> volcanoes or other processes interfering with the greenhouse effect.
> >> The following inferences come from no source but a fevered imagination.
> >> 
> >OK, now scroll up and *read what he said* again: back to business as
> >usual, with temperatures going back on an upward trend.  Now you tell
> >us:  how does that assertion *allow* for any more interruptions of
> >the sort being discussed here?  "Business as usual" means just that...
> >merrily the warming trend just rolls along, and no interlopers such
> >as volcanoes allowed.  Sheesh, not only do some of YOU PEOPLE read into
> >some of these things what's not there; in cases when it *is* there, 
> >you can't see the forest for the trees.  No wonder Rush (and I) have to
> >attach the meaning *for* you, as he so often states....
> 
> Business as usual does not mean that there can never again be an anomoly.
> Just how do you think it does? Are you really the jerk you seem to be?
> Business as usual means that the effects of the volcano are finite and
> when they subside the OBSERVED trend of higher global temperatures will
> continue. I never said anything about that never again in the history
> of the Earth that such an event, ie, the temporary sustaining of "global
> warming" by the effects of a volcanic eruption, will never, ever, happen
> again. And, MERELY that I didn't EXPLICITELY say this does not mean that
> I feel that such an event could never again occur.
> 
Here is what the original posting that I responded to SAID, (and are
these not originally your words, then...?)  :
quote: However, these scientists also said that this effect [Pinatubo's]
will be short-lived (after all the ashe does eventually wash out) and 
it will [be] back to business as usual with temperatures going back on
an upward trend which they have been on for over 100 years. 
unquote.

Now, that is *what* I saw.  I saw *no* qualifier---at least in the 
posting I read---that attempted to explain/ quantify this effect as 
being limited, e.g., "until the next major eruption", for instance. 
It was plainly left open-ended as though the assertion was no more
volcanic eruptions.  Now within the context of the posting *I read*,
that is plainly, clearly, and unequivocably *what was stated/asserted*.
If there was supposed to be more--that is, if there was in that tract
more than what was really meant to meet the eye, then it should have
been plainly so included at that point.  One cannot make overt, blanket
statements like this and expect someone to read in so an otherwise
important clarifying point that is not verbally included there. 

> >>   Yes, folks,
> >> >after a couple of billion years' worth of volcanic eruptions, the
> >> >environmentalists have suddenly declared that Mt. Pinatubo will be
> >> >the *last one ever*, and that from now on, no other active volcanoes
> >> >will be allowed to interfere with the big, bad global warming boogeyman
> 
> Oh, puh-leaze!!! NO ONE, absofuckinglutly, NO ONE, is "suddenly declaring"
> that global warming will never again be affected by acts of nature such
> as volcanic eruptions. I never implied such a thing and would NEVER imply
> such a thing. YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! FUTURE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS CAN AND WILL
> HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE PROCESS KNOWN AS "GLOBAL WARMING"!!! SO FUCKING WHAT?
> 
> Pardon me.
> 
> Now, if you have an INTELLIGENT comment to make on this debate, please make
> it. Otherwise, SHUT UP!
> 
Sir....calm down and get ahold of yourself.  You are making the noise of
a cornered animal.  Let's keep this "absof***inglutely" on a civil level,
shall we?  You are the one who is losing it.  Sheesh, I hope you don't
own a firearm..

> >Attach meaning mode on:
> >Mt. Pinatubo is only one of a *number* of active volcanoes on the Earth
> >today.  Did you *know* that?  What, Pinatubo is supposed herald some 
> >sort of swan song on the geologic front?
> 
> Did you know that this is the first time this century that Mt. Pinatubo
> erupted? Do you know that Mt. Pinatubo's eruption was larger than any
> other eruption in the past century? You need to start thinking in terms
> of geologic time frames.
> 
Well, now you seem to be calming down a bit and resuming your erstwhile
more rational debate mode, at least (from what I've seen from your 
previous postings).  Anyway, I know that there have been other volcanoes
erupting in this century.  There was somewhat of a bang from Mt. St. 
Helens in 1980....and another, wasn't it down in Mexico, a couple years
later?  And going back to your more that 100 years, didn't a Mt. Krakatoa
get a bit upset in the latter part of the 19th century?  Geologic time
frames?  Seeming that is within the scope of some 3-4 billion years, I'd
say only about 100 doesn't quite qualify....yet you curiosly use that
amount to assert unbridled, long-term global warming without end.  Why? 

> >  And what about the volcano(es)
> >after that, and the one(s) after that, etc, etc.???  How has it been
> >demonstrated that the Greenhouse Effect *will* ultimately prevail?  
> 
> The two do not go together.
> 
Really?  Funny how they share the same space-time continuum planetary  
locality...

> >This is climate and atmoshpherics balancing each other, not a doggone
> >celestial arm-wrestling tournament with a clear-cut predictable champ.  
> 
> Oh? You have some divine information we are not privy to? It is utter
> arrogance to imply that man could never have some effect on climate or
> the atmosphere.
> 
No....it is utter arrogance to think that man is greater than the sum
of the rest of Nature so as to be able to overwhelm it.  Isn't that 
your big fear? 

> >>  How great to know that the environ-
> >> >mentalists secretly have the power to switch off some of the strongest
> >> >forces in nature---at will, and forever!!!   After all, they can't
> >> >allow nature itself to get in the way of their *plans* for regimenting what
> >> >humanity does economically now, can they???
> 
> Mpre utter bovine fecal matter based on invalid assumptions.
> 
> >> You forgot the bit about how the environmentalists have planted hidden
> >> cameras and microphones in your house, and follow you everywhere you go.
> 
> Yes, I did forget that. I wonder why? Could it be that it is more bovine
> fecal matter?

Sorry, wrong posting you're referencing in that *last* sentence immediately
above.  That was from the reply to my reply.  Watch...it...to do that does
not help one's credibility..take a deep breath and relax some more....
chill out, man!!!

> >> >Yup, no more volcanoes to worry about--ever--now that the 'Cause-We-Say-So
> >> >Environmentalist Movement is exerting its secret power over the biosphere.
> 
> You really are a jerk, you know that?

Here we have it, folks....a *perfect example* of what Mr. Limbaugh is
talking about when someone runs out of substance.  Witness, then, who
throws the wild punch of utter desperation here...
> 
> I won't even comment on the childish comment which came after that.
> 
The only childish comment was the other guy's 4th-grade level attempt
at playground humor.  I merely put it in its proper perspective.  I'm
glad you finally have done here the same with your original assertion. 
> -- 
> Zack Sessions

Mr. Sessions, I may get strident and sarcastic, but I do not find a 
need to get hysterical and so bent out of shape over what I read here
that I become too exasperated to respond in a civil manner.  By your
words and mannerisms indeed can you be viewed.  I've come to expect
better of you than this.

So....."Can't we all get along", then??

                                                   H.R. Holm

 <*the usual qualifiers, gang...*>

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh