PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:
Not only that, but Jeff didn't deny that global warming wasn't
happening (although that in itself is questionable - if we're
allowed to question the sacred GW Scriptures); he was simply saying
that the evidence (evidence, mind you) is that global warming has
happened
Paul Lowrance wrote:
Evidence For Human-caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal'
February 2, 2007
I agree, what we are discussing is the cause. I contend that we are
seeing the convergence of several factors, solar irradiance, volcanic
activity, and possibly a change in the aether, all of
I am really disappointed at Wikipedia users for not having anything on the
Fizeau effect. It is intuitive and logical.
Anyway I wonder if there is a force on a transparent medium as a beam enters
it from a region of lower refractive index. Since the beam is slowed down I
just assume there would
Hi Jones,
I am not an expert, all I can tell is that diesel cars of all sizes have become
much more popular than gasoline cars over here in Europe, because gazole is
considerably less expensive than gasoline, plus consumption is lower, plus the
engine lasts longer, plus more recent models
Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of “global warming”.
He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you
buy it as gospel.
There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of
some on this forum scares me.
It has been much
Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted
the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed
how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial
Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's
Balls.
The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based
on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid
ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to)
One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans,
the
--- David Jonsson wrote:
I am really disappointed at Wikipedia users for not
having anything on the Fizeau effect. It is
intuitive and logical.
... and generally in the USA, the more general effect
goes by another name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
... or are you referring
No offense intended, but this topic is one of few that I take ***extremely***
seriously. I will be out right blunt and tell you that nearly all your
statements are out right fuzzy logic --
Jeff Fink wrote:
Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of “global warming”.
He puts
PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:
---
Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted
the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick graph that showed
how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution.
These chaps have been all but
BlankHowdy Vorts,
Cold Fusion makes its case in Chicago by Steve Ritter, an article in
Chemical and Engineering News, is an interesting read, both in context and
construction.
Context we understand. Construction is another. A careful study of Ritter's
composition of text is very revealing.
Then there's the small matter of two Canadian
scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/
mathematics behind the so-called hockey stick
graph that showed how much we puny humans have
influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution.
These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but
Let me repeat some of what I have said before.
I do not know enough about the technical issues surrounding global
warming to judge whether the effect is real or not, or -- assuming it
is real -- whether it is caused by people, by nature, or by some
combination of the two.
However, I do know
Dear Vo.,
Please read the portion of the text, below.
THEN please read comment that follows.
THEN.PLEASE offer some contribution[s] as opposed to rant, guess
Theory.
AND: Please read embedded text[s] .
-
Therefore when evaluating the net
John Berry wrote:
Balls.
The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't
based on science, it's just a philosophy if
Did you watch the video John? Volcanoes pump out 10 times as much CO2 as
all human activity. The big volcano you mentioned blocked out the
sunlight
_
From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:12 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming
The problem with augments against Global Warming is they lack pragmatism.
There are in the end 2 types of arguments
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
Balls.
The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't
based on science, it's just a philosophy if
Did you watch the video John? Volcanoes pump out 10 times as much CO2 as
all human activity. The big volcano you mentioned
-Original Message-
From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
No offense intended, but this topic is one of few that I take
***extremely***
seriously. I will be out right
After writing computer simulations for several decades now I have a good
understanding of such simulations. The computer will dominate science. :-)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/07084302.htm
What's fascinating is recent simulations show the known amount of human caused
CO2
The moon is just about the only other thing we can look at. Mercury is too
close to the sun, the other planets are cloud shrouded, and everything else
is likely too small to get a good reading. But, you are right. We should
see the same effect of elevated temps on the moon if solar activity is
Jeff Fink wrote:
Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were threatened with in
the
late 70’s.
Please show your references of leading climate scientists make such claims.
You don't remember it? It was all over the news and in magazines
during the late 70's. If I hadn't
Jeff Fink wrote:
Listen, neither you or I are climate scientists. Therefore it's only logical
to
listen to the mass majority of PhD climate scientists.
It is the liberal way to silence dissenting voices. The size of the
mass majority is skewed because the esteemed potential dissenters
Also you said I recall a news caster six weeks before saying that Europe
had
just experienced the warmest autumn in 500 years. You recall a news caster
making a statement??
The newscaster reported a statement. I don't know if he named a source. The
item was obviously intended to hype GW
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_DoE_panel_on_cold_fusion
This is surprisingly comprehensive.
I have to admit, the Wikipedia main article on cold fusion is holding
up remarkably well against skeptical attacks. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
People such as Pierre
Jeff Fink wrote:
Mercury is too close to the sun
Indeed, and if the sun is radiating X% more radiation then Mercury should be
hotter. Are you suggesting Mercury is always in front or behind the Sun so we
can't measuring it's blackbody radiation??? I'm curious where you get such
Jeff, how sure are you that GW is nonsense?
Are you pretty sure?
Is there a 10% chance it's real? 5%? 1%? one in a million??
At what point do the odds become justification for polluting out planet
more?
On 4/24/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Fink wrote:
Mercury is too close
This Mars warming up is a red herring. The source of that idea is one man
but it has been seized upon by the GW deniers as the basis of the latest in
a series of last minute revelations that they have trotted out - designed to
protect the status quo and muddy the waters. Most planetary climate
On 4/24/07, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
*From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2007 10:12 AM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming
The problem with augments against Global
A new documentary, Green: The New Red, White, and Blue was just released on
April 23 2007. DTMS, Discovery times channel is broadcasting this documentary
right now. Listen to it and tell me man contributed CO2 is not the cause of
Global Warming! Even Arnold Schwarzenegger states it's
You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always
starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess.
CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth
in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens.
Then
Balls!
On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it
always starts with balls. Something Newtonian I guess.
CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes
growth in plants, so we should
To expand on that, notice how the last thing Philip is interested in doing
is refuting the evidence that CO2 and Temperature are linked.
Or that CO2 is rising.
The core of the argument is never argued.
On 4/24/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Balls!
On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL
Oh, forgot to mention - Of course CO2 rising followed ocean temperature
changes (due to natural events) IN THE PAST. That is only to be expected.
Those who point to this as some sort of proof that CO2 has no effect on
global warming, and that the GW scientists have it back to front, are
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past
erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***.
Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity
continues to pump out a
from
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2007/straight_2007-04-05.cfm
Sometimes a Nobel is given to a guy who¹s a flake but probably deserves it
anyhow. One case in point is Cambridge University professor Brian Josephson,
who was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1973 for predicting how
35 matches
Mail list logo
