On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Radiation exposure levels for most people were elevated so minutely
above background that it may be impossible to tease out carcinogenic
effects from other risk factors, such as smoking or diet.
Hard to
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 10:32 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On 11/22/2013 7:03 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From
: Global warming silliness
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
It is very hard to prove causality for cancer.
That is absolutely true. A study on Fukushima was published in the May 20
2011 issue of the journal Science, it said:
Radiation
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:55 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Chris de Morsella
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
People who vote for the German Green Party are dimwits, and it ain't ad
hominem if it's true.
And people who term the Fukushima disaster as a “run of the mill
industrial accident” – which you said – are so far
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:43 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse
On 11/22/2013 7:03 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *John Clark
*Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2013 12:43 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Global warming silliness
On Thu, Nov 21
I try to stick to names that everyone recognises when I discuss debating
tactics, and *ad hom* is the usual description for using insults rather
than reasoned arguments (if you want to demonstrate my point further by
calling me pompous, don't let me stop you).
You can of course use *ad hominem*
On 22 November 2013 07:54, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chris de Morsella
cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
No you don’t know that at all. You don’t have some crystal ball and
are just quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:15 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
PS I do agree with you about nuclear power. That wasn't at issue (for me at
least). But if you use unfair debating tactics like motive-questioning, you
look like you don't have any real arguments.
On 22 November 2013 09:27, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 November 2013 07:54, John Clark
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
No you don’t know that at all. You don’t have some crystal ball and are
just quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low
balling the ultimate number of cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:54 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
No you don’t know that at all. You don’t have some crystal ball and are
just quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low
balling the ultimate number of cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl.
On 11/21/2013 6:21 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Unlike you, I don't believe there will be a need for it on a massive scale. By the
soonest time commercial rated LFTR reactors can be ready the costs per watt and the
scale of production for solar PV will have reached levels that would make it
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The WHO is much more trustworthy than the German Green Party, the WHO
has no ax to grind but if people don't think a environmental catastrophe is
imminent nobody is going to vote for the German Green Party.
This response is
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On 11/21/2013 6:21 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Unlike you, I don't
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/19/2013 3:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/19/2013 1:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2013 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained
On 18 Nov 2013, at 20:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2013 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained why
the free market can't fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't
answered my point.
And he's so concerned with anti-government straw
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2013 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained why the free
market can't fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't answered my point.
And he's so concerned with
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Nov 2013, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This
On 19 Nov 2013, at 10:27, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2013, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market
solution can't - or is
On 11/19/2013 1:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2013 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained why the free
market can't fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't
On 11/19/2013 1:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I agree with Brent. Government can be the best thing a democracy can have,
... until bandits get power and perverts the elections and the state power
separations (and get important control on the media, etc.).
But how to create a system that prevents
On 11/19/2013 2:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is
Reaganomics is hardly neo-liberalism
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/19/2013 2:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo
On 11/19/2013 3:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/11/19 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/11/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/18/2013 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes
2013/11/20 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/11/19 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/11/18 meekerdb
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Nov 2013, at 10:27, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Nov 2013, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/11/20 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/11/19 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:18
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market
solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work.
Yes, but this is circular. You're saying that the market cannot work
for things that you do not allow to be part
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market
solution can't - or is
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence
On 11/18/2013 4:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
In fact, in the 90s Microsoft wasn't too happy with how the web was
suddenly exploding and out of their control. Using their monopolistic
position, they created a browser and gave it away for free, then
stalled its development. This created a tragedy
On 18 Nov 2013, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free
market
On 11/18/2013 4:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If I tried to buy some land and start an
independent city, stormtroopers would show up at some point. Even if
I'm not harming anyone. Even if I'm totally self-reliant.
Depends on what you mean by independent city. If you just mean a place with homes
On 11/18/2013 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
But I certainly
2013/11/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/18/2013 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/16/2013
On 11/18/2013 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained why the free market can't
fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't answered my point.
And he's so concerned with anti-government straw men that he hasn't noticed that a
market requires
Please look at this (and tweet / resend it if you agree).
http://act.350.org/sign/haiyan
Thanks! :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market
solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work.
Yes, but this is circular. You're
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is
not
trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning us about
global
warming. It is in the
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was
rising. Can you explain that?
I can't explain that, nor do I understand why in the late Ordovician period
450 million years ago there was a huge 4400 ppm of CO2
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
wait to see what happens to the cancer rates over the next fifty years.
I don't now about Fukushima but I do know that the predictions of huge
increases of cancer from Chernobyl have proved to be enormous
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse
On 11/16/2013 2:37 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/11/14 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com
Hi Alberto,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes.
I proposed
On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is
not
trusted. However, it is not the government that is
This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market
solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work. No one is going to clean
up the commons, just as they didn't in medieval villages, because there is
no incentive for an individual, or a specific group, to do so. The tragedy
of
2013/11/14 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
Hi Alberto,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes.
I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
that is a waste of time,
Mentioning apocalyptic narratives is an
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 15, 2013 9:03 pm
Subject: RE: Global warming silliness
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:14 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/14/2013 3:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Good one, Chris.
But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear
of
government.
On 17 November 2013 08:36, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
No, I am concerned that the global warming scare can be exploited to
convince the people to relinquish more of its freedoms to the
government.
You mean the people still have some freedoms to relinquish?
The government
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:12 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 November 2013 08:36, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
No, I am concerned that the global warming scare can be exploited to
convince the people to relinquish more of its freedoms to the
government.
You mean the
On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is not
trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning us about global
warming. It is in the scientific research literature. You didn't find lies
about drones or drugs
On 14 Nov 2013, at 18:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The use of science by government of science is of the type of
pseudo-religion abuse.
?? Does not parse.
Sorry. Read instead: The use of science by governments is of the type
of pseudo-religion abuse.
There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because it
behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
why it is a good model.
Just like climate models parameter values have
So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable
effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial
revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't yet 100% accurate?
So let's sit on our hands and do nothing, just in case we make a better
world
2013/11/15 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable
effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial
revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't yet 100% accurate?
The models are 0% accurate.
The other
Hi Russell,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its
-but this will only takes us so
far. Think terawatts, not negawatts, and what tech we are going to use to
replace the dirty? Faster please.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: Global
-
From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 9:05 pm
Subject: RE: Global warming silliness
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday
The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes. They
also *have stopped further solar cell research* in the countries where
these
I mean, the subsidies are for solar energy production.
2013/11/15 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
familiar and industrial economy with such
On 11/15/2013 2:11 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because
it behaves
like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe,
dont want
to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand
it:
The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every
14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus.
What fact of the earth climate the climate models are capable to predict?
2013/11/15
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
And for nukes? I would say: O N L Y fusion!
The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil
pollution.
Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing
projects:
In 1975 the
On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even Germany will have
enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the familiar and industrial economy
with such incredible amount of taxes.
Germany's Industrial Economy
Germany was forced to reduce the subsidies retroactively, that means
breaking the contracts with already installed power plants. Like spain and
other countries. Even, so the taxes over electricity consumption would
provoke a revolution in USA.
2013/11/15 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On
Solar irradiance on the Earth is approximately 1.74×1017 Watts.
On 16 November 2013 02:13, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving the IPCC supporters the
benefit of the doubt, we must have abundant clean sources at the ready. We
need terawatts of clean,
On 16 November 2013 07:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There's nothing apocalyptic about global warming. Human will survive as a
species. At least so long as it doesn't trigger a nuclear war. But there
will be a lot death and suffering.
I agree. The question is whether our
On 16 November 2013 07:34, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand
it:
The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every
14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus.
What fact
On 16 November 2013 08:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the
familiar and industrial economy with
LizR
3:23 PM (29 minutes ago)
to everything-list
On 16 November 2013 07:34, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand
it:
The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every
14000 years, just
On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote:
And for nukes? I would say: O N L Y fusion!
The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil
pollution.
Lets look at
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
in the past, when the earth was much warmer, sea level was several meters
higher.
The sea was hundreds of meters higher in the past and will be so again
someday, but at a rate of one inch a decade we'll have plenty of time
[image: Inline images 1]
On 16 November 2013 09:54, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was
rising. Can you explain that? Richard
Why should I? This is a complex system with an uncontrolled experiment
running in it.
On 16 November 2013 10:07, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Straw man my ass, environmentalists never met a energy source they didn't
hate. Wind farms are ugly, disrupt wind patterns are noisy and kill
birdies. Geothermal smells bad and causes earthquakes. Hydroelectric floods
the land
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:18:17AM +1300, LizR wrote:
[image: Inline images 1]
On 16 November 2013 09:54, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was
rising. Can you explain that? Richard
PS on the subject of
On 16 November 2013 10:48, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
This is due to the presence of aerosols. Ironically, cleaning up our
pollution has caused the planet to warm faster.
Yes I thought it would be something like that. I recently heard there had
been a (slight) drop in
On 16 November 2013 10:44, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
That is not a predicion that test the validity of a model. I can do the
same with a program with then lines by adjusting three parameters.
A real model would reproduce the evolution of ancient climates
transitions, for
My own models and the one of star trekkers, Star warriors and in general
Sci-Fi aficionados indicates that the most probable catastrophe is an
alien invasion in the next 100 years.
We have only one planet to live. So I will consider you a bunch of retarded
deniers and brainless morons if you do
On 16 November 2013 11:13, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
My own models and the one of star trekkers, Star warriors and in general
Sci-Fi aficionados indicates that the most probable catastrophe is an
alien invasion in the next 100 years.
We have only one planet to live. So I
As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists.
Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times. It
is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor. You are a true
danger.
2013/11/15 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 16 November 2013 11:13,
On 11/15/2013 2:38 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists. Your
ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times. It is no surprise that
you lack the tiniest sense of humor. You are a true danger.
Alberto is
You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to
say. You are your worst enemy.
I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but the business of
some people here that live from big gobernment politics and ecoalarmist
demagogy.
2013/11/15 meekerdb
On 16 November 2013 11:38, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists.
Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times. It
is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor. You are a true
On 16 November 2013 11:57, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to
say. You are your worst enemy.
I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but the business of
some people here that live from big
On 11/15/2013 3:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 November 2013 11:57, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to
say. You
are your worst enemy.
I suspect that we have touched not only
On 16 November 2013 12:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/15/2013 3:16 PM, LizR wrote:
So far, my climate denier models are spot on.
How many times does you model predict Alberto will post that he's not
going to say anymore? Just curious.
:-)
--
You received this message
AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
2013/11/15 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable
effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial
revolution are irrelevant because the models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:14 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving the IPCC
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:30 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even
Germany
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:33 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
I mean, the subsidies are for solar energy production.
References
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
On 14 November 2013 16:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out
and then switch. It takes energy to build
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
