In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:57:18 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
At present, biological processes are not having a
significant effect on CO2 concentration.
They do have a significant effect. In fact it is larger than the effect we are
having. However at present our effect is
Jed Rothwell wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin
Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000
professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to
convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake
The author of this book is almost certainly a professional liar or deluded or -
giving him the most benefit-of-the-doubt possible - he is seriously misled and
is not capable of making a valid rational assessment of data and evidence in
the face of the glaringly obvious. He uses cherry picked
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all
the individual interactions that occur within the biosphere are also
included, by default (and there are trillions of them). And you
can't leave the biosphere out, because the annual swings in CO2
thomas malloy wrote:
The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a
massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that
they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that
they are engaged in fraud or that
The point of my posting these reports
this make sense?
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:45 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
thomas malloy wrote:
The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a
massive fraud
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to
conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy.
The situations with cold fusion and global warming denial do not seem
complicated or unseen to me. I don't know much about
(By the way, this list now includes fpur or five Stephens of one
spelling or another, and either two or three Stephen Lawrence's.)
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to
conclude that the situation must be caused
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all the
individual interactions that occur within the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia.
Cold fusion aside, this is actually not a completely stupid thing to do.
As much as I dislike Wikipedia, I must agree. Wikipedia is a good
source of information about conventional subjects. It is not such a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:
This is not caused by an Oligarchy but rather by specific people such
as the editor of the Scientific American, the science writer for Time
magazine,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Lawrence de Bivort ldebiv...@earthlink.net
mounted the barricade and roared out:
Greetings, all,
Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to
conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:29:19 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause
a simple, predictable secondary effect.
[snip]
The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will
cause B. It is not
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause
a simple, predictable secondary effect.
[snip]
The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will
cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at
Just to summarize my previous message briefly --
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will
cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at
such and such a time, and consequently B will happen also.
thomas malloy wrote:
Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red
Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning
making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient
truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. . . . He
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:
thomas malloy wrote:
Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red
Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is
Thomas sez:
Vortexians;
Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author
of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy
is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria.
The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off
since 1998. Mr.
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
... you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann ...
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Two seemingly similar but completely different situations. In LENR there is
good evidence of heat and nuclear processes evolving from singular
experiments where the parameters are well known and easily contained. On the
other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever
Rick Monteverde wrote:
On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans have
the ability in
either measurement or computation to correctly take into account the
dynamics of the vast paramater set of an ENTIRE PLANET (geez, how
obvious can this be anyway???).
That does not seem
Jed Rothwell wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red
Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the
And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin
Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000
professional
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:24:20 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
That does not seem obvious to me. The weather system of ENTIRE PLANET
is a complex system of course, but it is not more complex than, say,
an E. coli bacteria. It is infinitely less complex than the human
body
thomas malloy wrote:
And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin
Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000
professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to
convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data.
Non sequitur
Not
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
It is infinitely less complex than the human
body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard,
for that matter.
It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a
part of it.
Every living thing on the planet affects the weather
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
It is infinitely less complex than the human
body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard,
for that
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:42:31 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
It is infinitely less complex than the human
body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard,
for that matter.
It is more complex than all of those things, because
Stephen:
... Rick, you're of the opinion that things have gotten hotter ...
Please insert may (have gotten hotter), since it seems to be a trend,
although trends in complex dynamical systems are notoriously untrustworthy.
Jed:
The planet's weather is less complex than a bacterium? Funny
28 matches
Mail list logo
