On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors.
I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite
Yes Eric, I understand the thought. Deniers should be allowed their opinion
like everyone should. There is a danger though in letting the deniers
push propaganda as scientific fact. It's propaganda by the big energy
corps I fear. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few planted trolls on here
just
On 02/07/2013 02:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
Hi Craig, and fellow vortexians,
I'm looking at your graph on temperature anomalies and every data
point is above 0. Shouldn't some of you anomalies be negative. You
have 16 years of positive anomalies but not a single negative. I
think that
Sites [mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Vorl bek says: Look at this authoritive website for answers, and it points
to a rightwing funded propaganda machine called whatsupwiththat.
Congratulations
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed?
I assume that is a joke.
- Jed
Not really, I believe the sun can trigger both of them
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed?
I assume that is a joke.
- Jed
closed for a week and a couple of members being banned. Do
you want to see that happen again?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 2:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The reality of AGW
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors.
I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite
effective at mobilizing public opinion.
Eric
Sunspots also correlate with higher rates of solar flares and coronal mass
ejections (CMEs). The average CME is 1e+12 kgs of energetic stuff.
Don't you believe that stuff affects Earths energy balance also?
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Chuck Sites wrote:
Sunspots do reduce the solar input
On 02/06/2013 02:48 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it
can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are
dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less
light, less Solar input. Less solar
Earthworms? And I thought it was termite and bovine flatus.
You forgot cows
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Earthworms? And I thought it was termite and bovine flatus.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
You forgot cows
Leave my wife out of this.
Ouch!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
You forgot cows
Leave my wife out of this.
I guess bovine=cow, duh
Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?...
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Ouch!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Terry Blanton
hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess bovine=cow, duh
I thought you were joking. Whew!
Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?...
Kobe. Massage parlor.
Blah, blah, blah..living from paycheck to paycheck.
The discussion begins and ends there, simply by defining what the phrase means.
With greater advances in automation soon, that phrase will often become
'welfare check to welfare check'.
But fear not for the climate ! The Drudge Report
Please stop hijacking this discussion.
Thanks,
Craig
On 02/06/2013 09:27 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
Blah, blah, blah..living from paycheck to paycheck.
The discussion begins and ends there, simply by defining what the
phrase means. With greater advances in automation soon, that phrase
Speaking of cows and CMEs...
I believe some of those energetic particles/micro black holes/ball
lightning/plasmoid particles expelled from the sun are causing cattle
mutilatios on Earth. The low momentum ones move towards heat, like a cow's
butt.
Keep an eye on your wife, especially when it is
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:36:38 -0500
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of cows and CMEs...
I believe some of those energetic particles/micro black holes/ball
lightning/plasmoid particles expelled from the sun are causing cattle
mutilatios on Earth. The low momentum ones move
Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less
light.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can
be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are
Exactly, and just like on Earth, most low pressure atmospheric
disturbances, as gasses are collapsed and condensed are very cold. Same
thing when you collapse and condense Hydrogen in the sun's atmosphere. In
space orbiting particles less than 1e+20 kg are very hot because there is
no
AGW supporters have a number of mostly derogatory names for people who
aren't on board with their theories: Deniers, skeptics, lunatics, morons,
anti-science.
A lot of us in the skeptic camp aren't so much skeptical of the science
(although there is plenty to be skeptical of, as predictions have
Please stop referring to economic considerations of climate change as
'hijacking'.
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in
temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.)
That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream
global warming predictions. Please stick to
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:40:49 -0500
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in
temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.)
That is incorrect.
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing we can agree on: Any solution proposed to fight global warming
will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a
nuclear renaissance).
I guess so, but to put it another way, any solution will *earn* trillions
of dollars.
The tragic thing is that the economy actually would benefit if half the
unemployed were paid to dig holes in the ground and the other half paid to
fill the holes in.
This is the result of insane political economics.
So it is true that even if there is no global warming, paying unemployed
people
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say
that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is
the case?
It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people
making this claim started with the
On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com mailto:vorl@antichef.com wrote:
I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say
that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is
the case?
It is a myth that
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The tragic thing is that the economy actually would benefit if half the
unemployed were paid to dig holes in the ground and the other half paid to
fill the holes in.
That would be something like war. WWII was a tremendous boost to the U.S.
economy, even
Hi Craig and other vortexers.
I would like to respond to several of your comments. First on the
issue of Solar Irradiance or the solar forcing as it's described in the
computer models. it is certainly the main contributing factor to heat of
the atmosphere. No doubt about it. Sometimes it
On 02/06/2013 04:20 PM, Craig wrote:
On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The
people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16
years ago. See:
I don't agree with that, but you can see it here:
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a graph:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing
So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can
continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard
deviation.
They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino
So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed?
I am not saying that CO2 does not have a contribution to our climate, I
just want us to all realize we are a freckle on the Sun's butt and at its
mercy whenever it decides to fart.
Stewart
The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers
are just plain stupid.
However, this shows that global warming is not transparently
self-evident and that an additional level of
analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the
climate scientists speak down
The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain
stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against
your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009.
Chuck
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Vorl bek says: Look at this authoritive website for answers, and it points
to a rightwing funded propaganda machine called whatsupwiththat.
Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots.
Best Regards,
Chuck
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that climate change deniers are in denial. But
everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and to be honest it doesn't
seem like
Hi Craig, and fellow vortexians,
I'm looking at your graph on temperature anomalies and every data point
is above 0. Shouldn't some of you anomalies be negative. You have 16
years of positive anomalies but not a single negative. I think that proves
the point that temperatures are trending
:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain
stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against
your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009.
Chuck
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1
I'm more conservative tha many on tha subject.
ther is no doubt that a pile of stupidiy, of scientific errors, of biased
data and interpretation, exist on both side.
It is surprising tha having suffered in LENr about pathologic consensu,
funding propelled corruption of scientific method,
It isn't just AGW we need to worry about...
EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate
Change Research.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/global-worming-are-earthworms-accelerating-climate-change
This is peer-reviewed hard science, so please refrain from
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't just AGW we need to worry about...
EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate
Change Research.
Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers
(or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter,
mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global
warming.
I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his
On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers
(or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that
matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of
global warming.
I want to reply to Craig's
Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can
be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark
spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less
Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature
I'm probably going to make a few enemies, but the deniers of global warming
(skeptic is too kind, Contrarian is more like it) really need to head over
to NOAA.gov or Climate.gov and see what all of many
different satellite data are showing. First, let's answer Craig's
comments about not knowing
Falling technology to lower levels due to slow degredation, and burning
(literally) of our infrastructure won't end up being more greenhouse gases?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
**
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global
economy will reduce emissions dramatically . . .
That does not follow at all! Per capita emissions are much higher in Mexico
and China than they are in the U.S. and Japan. Poverty
Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their
populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do developing
nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than
ever, contrary to many predictions.
Virtuous cycle? That would be
I wrote:
Per capita emissions are much higher in Mexico and China than they are in
the U.S. and Japan. Poverty causes pollution. Rich nations can afford
things like nuclear power, wind power, electric lighting and modern hybrid
automobiles.
To be a little more concrete, look at the recent
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
**
Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their
populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse.
If we would start to address the problems we will grow richer, not poorer.
In the past when we built the
On 02/04/2013 04:59 PM, Chuck Sites wrote:
The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global
Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is
so blatantly obvious in the data, observations, theory and models that
the only reason I can think that anyone would argue
Craig, I agree with your thinking. We are intrinsically connected to the
sun thru sunspots, solar flares CME's as well as the solar wind and
typical radiation . I think Earth is just a nodal battery in what is
primarily a dark matter/entropic Matrix...
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Craig
In reply to Craig's message of Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:37:26 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar
activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree.
That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it
somewhat,
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
**
Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their
populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do
developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what's known:
* CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion.
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of
the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong
greenhouse gas. Water vapor is
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The reason is both political and based on the very slow response of the
earth system to any change man might make.
This makes no sense to me. The earth system is responding to CO2. Suppose
we quickly remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, with a
Thanks for the summary Craig...
I like it when Vorts take time to look into an issue and then report back
and provide references...
Here's a link to a site which keeps track of the peer-reviewed papers which
present the skeptical side of AGW:
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic
Nice analysis, Craig. However, I think the wrong issues are being
discussed. I think we can agree and a wide range of date show that
the average temperature of the earth is going up, the ocean levels are
rising, and the pH the ocean is shifting in a more acid direction.
All of these
61 matches
Mail list logo
