From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #334 Dead-Flames Digest #334, Volume #48 Mon, 19 Sep 05 19:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) ("pv34pv3p") Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("Carlisle") Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("Ray") Re: I love a good Franklin's Tower ... ("Steve Terry") Re: A Brother to the North Wrote ("The Iron Muffin") Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? ("The Iron Muffin") Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? ("Jeff Howe") Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("YoMama") Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? (Joe) Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? ("Carlisle") Re: 7/7/81 and 7/4/81 FLAC vine, No B No P. ("Steve Terry") Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? ("Rupert") Re: (NDC): Head for the mountains! Bush!! ("Carlisle") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pv34pv3p" Subject: Re: The REAL Disaster (NDC) Date: 19 Sep 2005 18:20:01 -0700 >Got Propaganda? No recent encounters...Why? Ya runnin' short? pv34pv3p ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 19 Sep 2005 18:20:01 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > Ray, there's no doubt there has been a few degrees of climate change > > > for the warmer over the past decades. My question is: Is this a > > > man-made phenomenon or is it a cyclical part of nature? > > > > Carrie, > > > > I'm glad that you at least admit that global warming is actually > > happening -despite absolute scientific proof of its existence, some > > self-styled expert pundits on the issue (invariably Bush apologists > > and/or political ideologues), like Ben Stein in an article someone had > > posted here recently, still use rhetoric that insinuates that there is > > reasonable doubt on that point - there isn't. > > > > However you are still well behind the curve here, and I'm suprised that > > you are asking this question *again* I already answered it for you once > > in a previous thread. As I had explained to you in that thread, the > > scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth has been > > warming over the past 100 years, and that humanity's greenhouse gas > > emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is > > summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > > Change's the Third Assessment Report, which that "most of the warming > > observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". > > > > Moreover, your question here isn't the most important question in the > > bigger picture in any event. The important question in the bigger > > picture is not whether current global warming is mostly man-made, but > > whether, if current trends continue, *future* (near-term - next 100+ > > years) global warming will be mostly man-made. And the answer to that > > question is even more certain than your less-important question - it is > > the consensus of the atmospheric scientific community that, if current > > trends continue, future global warming will be mostly man-made. > > > > Do you have a background in chemistry, physics, and math, Carrie? If > > so I refer you also to Seinfeld & Pandis' "Atmospheric Chemistry and > > Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change" - it's the bible on the > > subject, and the scientific explanation of global warming is laid out > > in there. Read that and then we can discuss in as much scientific > > detail as you want as to why, if current trends continue, future global > > warming will be mostly man-made. > > > > > 1000 years ago, > > > the Earth was alot warmer. > > > > No, it wasn't. > > > > > Check Greenland. > > > > Check this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change graph of average > > temperature in the northern hemisphere for the past thousand years: > > > > http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-20.htm > > > > Moreover carbon dioxide (the primary greenhose gas) in the atmosphere > > is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues to rise. > > > > > This was before cars, > > > electricity, greenhouse gases, Enron or Halliburton. > > > > Per that National Academy of Sciences' 2001 report "Climate Change > > Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions": "The changes observed > > over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human > > activities." > > > > > So before we > > > implement anything radical and possibly harmful to our economy > > > > Taking significant measures to curtail greenhouse gas emissions is more > > "radical" and more "possibly harmful to our economy" than > > multi-billion-dollar damages and bailouts after major cities and entire > > regions of the country are devastated due to rising ocean levels and an > > increased frequency of category 5 hurricanes? > > > > Sheesh. The massive devastation left in Katrina wake -- the worst > > "natural" disaster (or at the very least the most expensive) in this > > nation's history -- should provide ample evidence that not addressing > > global warming is penny wise and pound foolish. > > > > Other adverse global warming consequences could also include: increased > > frequencies of deadly heat waves, drought, and fires, and increased > > disease (disease-carrying mosquitoes are even now spreading as climate > > shifts allow them to survive in formerly inhospitable areas). > > > > And these are merely some of the more likely global warming > > conzequences. Did you read the Pentagon's report on the worst-case > > scenario that I provided the excutive summary and a link to, Carrie? > > Worldwide devastation and upheaval is a real possibility here. > > Consider for example this scenario for China (and its neighbors): > > > > ________________________ > > > > China, with its high need for food supply given its vast population, is > > hit hard by a decreased reliability of the monsoon rains. Occasional > > monsoons during the summer season are welcomed for their precipitation, > > but have devastating effects as they flood generally denuded land. > > Longer, colder winters and hotter summers caused by decreased > > evaporative cooling because of reduced precipitation stress already > > tight energy and water supplies. Widespread famine causes chaos and > > internal struggles as a cold and hungry China peers jealously across > > the Russian and western borders at energy resources. > > __________________________ > > > > > > Yeag - I know, I know - the Pentagon report is only "speculating" here; > > we don't know "with certainty" that this will happen. > > > > True, but 2 points: > > > > 1) Even without taking into account the worst-case scenario, as noted > > above the adverse consequences of unchecked global warming will with > > much higher likelihood nonetheless still be massively devastating and > > astrononically expensive. > > > > 2) Consider the current terrorist threat, which this Adminstration has > > focused on with, well, blinders: with that threat, too, we are only > > "speculating" that there will be another attack - we don't know "with > > certainty" that such an attack will happen either. But does that mean > > that we shouldn't prepare for such that possibility? Of course not - > > providing safety and security in large degree about anticipating and > > doing what one can to thwart reasonably *possible* serious threats. > > And the threat of global warming certainly qualifies in that regard. > > Which is why the Pentagon report concluded that global warming "should > > be elevated beyond > > a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern." > > > > > I want to know if this is a futile exercise in > > > controlling nature. > > > > 2 points: > > > > 1) Given that if current trends continue future global warming will be > > mostly man-made, the answer here is that no, it would NOT be "a futile > > exercise." > > > > 2) With regards to curtailing greenhouse gas emissions we're not > > talking about "controlling" nature in any event - we're talking about > > not continiung to alter and disrupt nature. > > > > > That's why I'm listening very closely to scientists with the least > > > amount of agenda involved as possible. > > > > Sorry Carrie, but I'm not buying it. You say that, and you have also > > claimed to be "watching this issue very closely." However if you were > > REALLY "watching this issue very closely" and "listening very closely > > to scientists with the least amount of agenda involved as possible" > > then you wouldn't be asking these questions - you'd have already known > > the answers. > > > > Ray > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's > > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of > > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil > > fuels." > > > > - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, > > U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005 > > Thanks for taking the time, Ray. Seriously. My education is an on-going > process. I don't have any answers in reality. I mean other than my > Physics/Chem PhD from MIT, I'm feeling around in the dark like most > other Americans. (kidding)..So there is global warming. The larger > question is how catastrophic could it become and is it worthwhile and > realistic to try and reduce the Earth's tempertaures? There is so much > information out there. I've looked..I'm still looking..The bottom line > is--what are the answers?? > Here is an interesting site only meant to give another perspective. > http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/ > respect, > carrie Let me try again- http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/ If not..oh well, Ray has obviously done HIS homework. ;} respect, cc ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 19 Sep 2005 18:24:53 -0700 YoMama wrote: > I'm on the fence on this issue, but here's one scientist that doesn't > think global warming is real: "Meteorologist William Gray may be the > world's most famous hurricane expert." This quote bears repeating (emphasis mine): "NEARLY ALL climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels." - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005 Are there some who disagree? Sure. And William Gray is one of the most outspoken and well-known of the contrarians, and as such he is quite often the one brought out for "balance" (or "debunking", depending on the news source) on the issue. But what the media often fails to point out is that Gray is very much in the minority on this issue. > You don't believe global warming is causing climate change? > > G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. > I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot > of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight > global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there > has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 > years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other > factors. It is not human induced. This addresses whether *current* global warming has resulted in *current* climate change - which most climate scientists believe is the case. Again the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- which is comprised of hundreds of climates scientists from across the globe -- "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". That said, as previously noted the issue of the adverse effects from *future* global warming is in even less doubt. > That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers. > > G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are > skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. I don't know specifically about hurricane researchers (my expertise is in atmospheric air pollution), but one more time (with feeling): "NEARLY ALL climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels." - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005 > But no one asks us. This, from a guy who is routinely interviewed and cited on the topic. > If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere > functions, you will of course say, "Look, greenhouse gases are going > up, the globe is warming, they must be related." Well, just because > there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean > that one is causing the other. True. Which is why we can't say with any scientific certaintly whether Katrina was related to global warming - and as Gray notes Katrina was within statistical norms. What we can say with reasonable scientific certainty, however, is that the frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes will with reasonable likelihood increase if global warming trends continue unabated. > Why is there scientific support for the idea? > > G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming > thing-all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to > frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold > war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and > what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases? Jeez... If "these big labs" want to get money these days all they have to do is shout "Terrorist!" and voila, they get the big bucks. And that doesn't explain why most academic climate scientists "support the idea" in any event. Ray ------------------------------ From: "Steve Terry" Subject: Re: I love a good Franklin's Tower ... Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:25:51 -0500 "Richard Morris" wrote in message news:7dKdnR2cN6ufGbHeRVn-hg@comcast.com... > One of my favorites has always been the version on Dead Set, recorded live > at the Warfield Theater ... > > It probably isn't the best version out there, but they nailed the rhythmic > feel for this tune from the get-go that night. > > Love the syncopated rhythm guitar lines about 11 seconds into the intro. > Franklin's is a tune which lives and dies on syncopation, and those guitar > strums establish the rhythmic feel for this entire version. > > Love the way the drummers were feeding that rhythmic feel with their > single stick rolls into the one (examples at 53 seconds into the tune, and > again a 1:06). These are the kind of nuances that a drummer can drop in > when he or she is feeling absolutely comfie with the tune and wants to get > cocky about it. > > Phil was letting it bounce through most of the tune. Jerry's first lead > ... no big deal. Second lead, I think he switched to some finger picking > to mix his lead rhythmically with Phil and the drummers. > > And it all hangs together so very, very well as ensemble play by the band. > > What's yer favorite Franklin? > > R. > > > -- > Drop "trousers" to respond via email. > Hey Richard, check out the DVD of 10/31/80, and watch the boys in action. This song exemplifies what synergy is to me. You can watch these six musicians each doing their respective thing and it doesn't seem to add up. I hear more than appears to be happening on stage. It's a classic example of what the Grateful Dead are all about, IMHO. ------------------------------ Reply-To: "The Iron Muffin" From: "The Iron Muffin" Subject: Re: A Brother to the North Wrote Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:35:13 -0400 pv34pv3p wrote: > The Iron Muffin wrote: > > hope you got a really good price for your soul. > > Fortunately for you Mr Muffin...It's still up for grabs... > Make an offer... No thanks. I don't deal in damaged merchandise, and I don't buy broken records. -- The Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? ------------------------------ Reply-To: "The Iron Muffin" From: "The Iron Muffin" Subject: Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:35:59 -0400 Spider Dawg wrote: > I've said it before and I'll say it again..... > > Bill the Cat and Mickey Mouse behind a pair of drum kits. Hell yeah. I posted about that shirt a week or two ago... -- The Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? ------------------------------ From: "Jeff Howe" Subject: Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:33:41 -0400 wrote in message news:1127169142.855891.245250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > For some reason lamenting the loss of my > 'Trouble ahead Jerry in red" shirt > circa 1982-83???? > > Uncle Jerry's Trip Wax > 'The best dead for your head" > pocket T > circa 1989 summer tour.... > > One of the things i miss about the lot scene > was the variety of high quailty, funny, way cool, > and affordable t-shirts ever. Sure -- it was a twist on Wild Things Things Are, with the monsters and Max as Deadheads. It was way cool, and I got it by trading a JGB ticket to for the Orpheum in Boston somewhere back in '77, I'm thinking. The shirt was lovingly hand done, not mass-made, and I thought it was very cool. It's not completely gone -- just mostly in tatters. I can't wear it any more. ~jeff > > > -matt > ------------------------------ From: "YoMama" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 19 Sep 2005 18:33:39 -0700 Ray wrote: > YoMama wrote: > > I'm on the fence on this issue, but here's one scientist that doesn't > > think global warming is real: "Meteorologist William Gray may be the > > world's most famous hurricane expert." > > This quote bears repeating (emphasis mine): > > "NEARLY ALL climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil > fuels." > > - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, > U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005 > > > Are there some who disagree? Sure. And William Gray is one of the > most outspoken and well-known of the contrarians, and as such he is > quite often the one brought out for "balance" (or "debunking", > depending on the news source) on the issue. But what the media often > fails to point out is that Gray is very much in the minority on this > issue. > > > You don't believe global warming is causing climate change? > > > > G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. > > I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot > > of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight > > global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there > > has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 > > years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other > > factors. It is not human induced. > > This addresses whether *current* global warming has resulted in > *current* climate change - which most climate scientists believe is the > case. Again the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > Change -- which is comprised of hundreds of climates scientists from > across the globe -- "most of the warming observed over the last 50 > years is attributable to human activities". > > That said, as previously noted the issue of the adverse effects from > *future* global warming is in even less doubt. > > > That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers. > > > > G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are > > skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. > > I don't know specifically about hurricane researchers (my expertise is > in atmospheric air pollution), but one more time (with feeling): > > "NEARLY ALL climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil > fuels." > > - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, > U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005 > > > But no one asks us. > > This, from a guy who is routinely interviewed and cited on the topic. > > > If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere > > functions, you will of course say, "Look, greenhouse gases are going > > up, the globe is warming, they must be related." Well, just because > > there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean > > that one is causing the other. > > True. Which is why we can't say with any scientific certaintly whether > Katrina was related to global warming - and as Gray notes Katrina was > within statistical norms. What we can say with reasonable scientific > certainty, however, is that the frequency of category 4 and 5 > hurricanes will with reasonable likelihood increase if global warming > trends continue unabated. > > > Why is there scientific support for the idea? > > > > G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming > > thing-all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to > > frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold > > war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and > > what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases? > > Jeez... If "these big labs" want to get money these days all they have > to do is shout "Terrorist!" and voila, they get the big bucks. And > that doesn't explain why most academic climate scientists "support the > idea" in any event. > > Ray Sir, I would like to thank you for a calm, rational, and interesting response. You rock. ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? Date: 20 Sep 2005 01:36:35 GMT I don't remember exactly which free concert it was, probably the 25th anniversary of the Summer of Love concert, in Golden Gate Park. Some hippie came by, flashed me his home-designed t-shirt, and I burst out laughing and bought it, and wore it so much that it's just a tattered rag now. It had a graphic of Jerry, and it said "Jerry Garcia For President - 1992" Hmmm. I wonder if that was Doc Martian's tee? I had another great one. It showed an evolutionary chart, with a caveman at the lowest point, and a skeleton with roses at the highest evolutionary point. Lastly, another wonderful one was bought at a Berkeley Greek Theater show, and it had a graphic of the setting stealie going down over the Golden Gate Bridge. Joe ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? Date: 19 Sep 2005 18:43:12 -0700 the.stugots@gmail.com wrote: > For some reason lamenting the loss of my > 'Trouble ahead Jerry in red" shirt > circa 1982-83???? > > Uncle Jerry's Trip Wax > 'The best dead for your head" > pocket T > circa 1989 summer tour.... Uncle Jerry's Trip Wax--YES! Somehow that one got away. I still have an Air Jerry t-shirt from around the same time showing Jerry making a dunk shot. (as if) Believe the "Trouble Ahead Jerry in Red" was from summer 1985. p&l, carrie ------------------------------ From: "Steve Terry" Subject: Re: 7/7/81 and 7/4/81 FLAC vine, No B No P. Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:46:59 -0500 I'm listening to 7/7/81 right now and have to ask: Is this the fastest Eyes ever? I've never heard it at this fast of a tempo. ------------------------------ From: "Rupert" Subject: Re: Any Tour shirts you wish you still had? Date: 19 Sep 2005 18:48:36 -0700 Oh man, I just wish that I had bought larger sizes back when I was in high school! I was a skinny bastard back then. I've still got all of my old shirts, no matter how ratty they are...my first show at Moscone Center in 1982, Return to Forever from '83, The Who's "Farewell" tour from '82, Roger Waters' "Pros & Cons of Hitchiking" tour from '85. Owen gets to impress his little friends as soon as he's big enough to fit into 'em. -Rupert ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: (NDC): Head for the mountains! Bush!! Date: 19 Sep 2005 18:51:01 -0700 Steve Terry wrote: > "RickNBarbInSD" wrote in message > news:1127175912.499064.120130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/entertainment/4985473/detail.html > > > > > > > > Son Of Gov. Bush Charged With Public Intoxication > > > > > > POSTED: 5:45 pm PDT September 16, 2005 > > > > AUSTIN, Texas -- The youngest son of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has been > > arrested in Austin, Texas, and charged with public intoxication and > > resisting arrest. > > > > Law enforcement officials also say John Ellis Bush -- who is 21 -- was > > arrested by agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission early > > Friday in Austin's Sixth Street bar district. > > > > Officials say the nephew of President George W. Bush was released on > > $2,500 bond for the resisting arrest charge, and on a personal > > recognizance bond for the public intoxication charge. > > Copyright 2005 by > > > > Sounds like he's right on track to be Prez someday just like his uncle. Bush schmush--don't you owe me a crispy soundboard, since we made a bet and I said the Hoosiers were gonna beat Kentucky?? Isn't that how it went? Steve, really you can trust me. No way would I lace your bourbon balls with chocolate ExLax..Not something I would even think about doing. ;}} carrie ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .