Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Re: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Thank ! That was awesome! I saw Al’s

speech on Link TV last year but it’s changed quite a bit and a lot more

explosive. Al is great. I will say it again….Al Gore would be our best

advocate as president. It is interesting to note that Partician Publications

produced it. -

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Lynda Huggins

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:27

AM

EOH LIST

Subject: An Inconvenient

Truth

See the trailer of Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, at http://www.care2.com/globalwarming/

Pretty

scary stuff.

PONSORED

LINKS

kirby

Mercury

research

Autism

research

American

politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

and the other oil barons (

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html ). (By the way,

even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is proceeding...)

It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

is negligible).

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html

Well, I'm off to see film. Three cheers to Al Gore for having the

guts to stand up against the huge energy corporations!

At 06:12 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:

>Interesting that all planets in our system are experiencing warming

>due to a sun cycle.

>

>Ice caps on Mars are melting ...... probably due to the 2 Rovers...... not....

>

>False science ....

>

>At 01:01 AM 6/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:

> >the movie with Al Gore,

> >and the website:

> >http;//www.climatecrisis.net

> >

> >

> >Carol

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but

> >under no circumstances should any information published here be

> >considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified

> >physician. -the owner

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi:

BTW, show me a single peer-reviewed scientific article that refutes

that human activities are involved with global warming - which you

probably cannot - and I'll show you nearly 1,000 peer reviewed

articles that support that. As for Mars global warming here is the

real information, not the oil company propaganda:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

At 06:12 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:

>Interesting that all planets in our system are experiencing warming

>due to a sun cycle.

>

>Ice caps on Mars are melting ...... probably due to the 2 Rovers...... not....

>

>False science ....

>

>At 01:01 AM 6/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:

> >the movie with Al Gore,

> >and the website:

> >http;//www.climatecrisis.net

> >

> >

> >Carol

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but

> >under no circumstances should any information published here be

> >considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified

> >physician. -the owner

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact that Mars

is also experiencing global warming?

Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but it's

pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address anything

that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

Brown wrote:

>

> Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

>

> Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

> status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

> and the other oil barons (

> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html> ). (By the way,

> even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

> arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

> warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is proceeding...)

>

> It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

> largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

> is negligible).

>

> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html>

>

> Well, I'm off to see film. Three cheers to Al Gore for having the

> guts to stand up against the huge energy corporations!

>

>

>

> At 06:12 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:

>

> >Interesting that all planets in our system are experiencing warming

> >due to a sun cycle.

> >

> >Ice caps on Mars are melting ...... probably due to the 2

> Rovers...... not....

> >

> >False science ....

> >

> >At 01:01 AM 6/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:

> > >the movie with Al Gore,

> > >and the website:

> > >http;//www.climatecrisis.net

> > >

> > >

> > >Carol

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but

> > >under no circumstances should any information published here be

> > >considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified

> > >physician. -the owner

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find' function for

work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money trail more

than any

pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

scientists have

a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

overlooking Mars?

Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were surveyed

about the movie

& it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie to be

extremely accurate.

I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

some of

self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

thought the self -promotion

was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as only the

science presentation, it

was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We will see

huge effects of GW in

our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

Dave Narby wrote:

> Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

>

> Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact that Mars

> is also experiencing global warming?

>

> Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but it's

> pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address anything

> that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

>

> Brown wrote:

> >

> > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> >

> > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

> > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

> > and the other oil barons (

> > http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>> ). (By the way,

> > even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

> > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

> > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is proceeding...)

> >

> > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

> > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

> > is negligible).

> >

> > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi:

If you think that I did not respond to the issue of Mars Global

warming, you did not catch up on all your posts. I posted a link to

the following (opening paragraph copied below). This is from the

Climate Science site and the consensus of climate scientists is that

the opinion that global warming is being caused by increased solar

output is not valid:

----------

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192>Global warming on Mars?

Filed under:

*

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>Climate

Science

*

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-eart\

h-connections/>Sun-earth

connections

*

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/climate-\

modelling/>Climate

modelling

* <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/>FAQ

­ group @ 11:21 am -

(<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/f\

r/>

fr flag

)

Guest contribution by <http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/steinn/>Steinn

Sigurdsson.

Recently, there have been some suggestions that " global warming " has

been observed on Mars (e.g.

<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews & summit=AutosSum\

mit05 & storyid=2005-09-21T013927Z_01_KWA105917_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPACE-MARS.xml>here).

These are based on observations of regional change around the South

Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a " global " change, and

used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming

on Earth and Mars (e.g.

<http://instapundit.com/archives/025681.php>here and

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011741.php>here). But this is

incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

----------

It is clear that it is the belief system of those who don't want to

change the way we do things that is at issue here, not my belief

system. My mind is open and I look carefully at scientific observations.

The entrenched status quo believers keep changing their arguments as

the zeitgeist has begun to accept global warming as a

reality. Firstly, for the past 40 years their claims have centered

around that global warming was not happening, despite scientific

studies dating back to the late 1950s and early 1960s implicating

man-made carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions as a cause for

global warming. Now that it has become very clear that global

warming is happening, the claim of those true believers in the status

quo has changed to " human activities are not causing global

warming. " Ergo, we don't have to change. That is the conclusion

that they're after.

You referred to me as a " true believer " ignoring something that

doesn't " fit my zeitgeist, " but in reality, zeitgeist refers to " the

general culture, education, and morals of a given era " and not to a

given person or group's belief system or philosophy. As in " the

zeitgeist of that era held that the Earth was the center of the

universe. " The zeitgeist with regard to global warming is currently

in a state of flux, that it is happening is nearly well-established

in our current zeitgeist. The current zeitgeist is muddy with

respect to what is causing global warming, mostly because of the

propaganda of vested interests that do not want to change the status quo.

<http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976745206>Phoenix

Rises (Again) on Global Warming

Tell me, who is silencing the scientists (who are in a small

minority) that don't believe human activities are the major cause of

global warming? Yet, and this is just one example, NASA scientist

Jim Hansen was silenced because of the Bush administration's

opposition to mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases that many

scientists tie to global warming.

Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that whatever is causing it,

global warming is accelerating and that the earlier predictions of

rising sea levels by 2100 to 2200 are way too conservative. The rate

of deterioration of Greenland's ice cap has tripled in the past few

years as one given example. See the article linked below. The same

thing is occurring in Antarctica.

The mechanism for this was not predicted in any of the earlier

computer models. As warm water melts at the top of the glaciers, it

creates channels through the ice all the way to the bottom of the

glacier, accelerating the melting of the glacier and the movement of

the glacier toward the sea. The rate has tripled in the last decade

and this observation has been confirmed by several scientists. The

climate and atmospheric science communities are rushing to do

additional studies to get a better understand of this unexpected

glacial movement rate increase.

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines>Research

by NASA Scientist Jay Zwally (review article in popular press)

<http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>Oceanus

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20>New

Scientist Space

It may be that sea levels will rise much faster than previously

predicted if this rate of movement toward the sea and breakup

continues to accelerate. Even now, disease bearing insects are

moving North and to much higher altitudes, bringing malaria and other

diseases to places that have never before seen them. All of our

lives may be at stake in the not too distant future as disease

increases, weather becomes more severe and coastal areas are

inundated. For this reason, this subject is definitely on-topic for

this group. Our lives and health are at stake no matter what your

belief system with regard to the origin.

Can we do anything about all this?

At 08:49 PM 7/2/2006, you wrote:

>Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

>

>Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact that Mars

>is also experiencing global warming?

>

>Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but it's

>pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address anything

>that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

>

> Brown wrote:

> >

> > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> >

> > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

> > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

> > and the other oil barons (

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regu\

lation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html> ). (By the way,

> > even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

> > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

> > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is proceeding...)

> >

> > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

> > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

> > is negligible).

> >

> >

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> >

>

<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html>htt\

p://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html

>

> >

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html>

> >

> > Well, I'm off to see film. Three cheers to Al Gore for having the

> > guts to stand up against the huge energy corporations!

> >

> >

> >

> > At 06:12 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:

> >

> > >Interesting that all planets in our system are experiencing warming

> > >due to a sun cycle.

> > >

> > >Ice caps on Mars are melting ...... probably due to the 2

> > Rovers...... not....

> > >

> > >False science ....

> > >

> > >At 01:01 AM 6/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:

> > > >the movie with Al Gore,

> > > >and the website:

> > > >http;//www.climatecrisis.net

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >Carol

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but

> > > >under no circumstances should any information published here be

> > > >considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified

> > > >physician. -the owner

> > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi:

Here is my previous post on the science of Mars global warming that

some of you may have missed.

And for a hint at the massive blockage of the truth undertaken by the

Bush Administration and the consensus of scientists on this subject,

click below and check out:

<http://dan.kootenaygreen.ca/?Articles:The_Latest_Science_on_Global_Warming_is_V\

ery_Bad>

The Latest Science on Global Warming is Very Bad

>Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:48:56 -0700

><Longevity >

>From: Brown <Scotflyr@...>

>Subject: Re: An Inconvenient TRUTH

>Bcc: ƒ\Longevity

>

>Hi:

>

>BTW, show me a single peer-reviewed scientific article that refutes

>that human activities are involved with global warming - which you

>probably cannot - and I'll show you nearly 1,000 peer reviewed

>articles that support that. As for Mars global warming here is the

>real information, not the oil company propaganda:

>

>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

>

>

>

>At 06:12 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:

>

>

>>Interesting that all planets in our system are experiencing warming

>>due to a sun cycle.

>>

>>Ice caps on Mars are melting ...... probably due to the 2

>>Rovers...... not....

>>

>>False science ....

>>

>>At 01:01 AM 6/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:

>> >the movie with Al Gore,

>> >and the website:

>> >http;//www.climatecrisis.net

>> >

>> >

>> >Carol

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but

>> >under no circumstances should any information published here be

>> >considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified

>> >physician. -the owner

>> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi:

Here is my previous post on the science of Mars global warming that

some of you may have missed.

And for a hint at the massive blockage of the truth undertaken by the

Bush Administration and the consensus of scientists on this subject,

click below and check out:

<http://dan.kootenaygreen.ca/?Articles:The_Latest_Science_on_Global_Warming_is_V\

ery_Bad>

<http://dan.kootenaygreen.ca/?Articles:The_Latest_Science_on_Global_Warming_is_V\

ery_Bad>The

Latest Science on Global Warming is Very Bad

>Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:48:56 -0700

><Longevity >

>From: Brown <Scotflyr@...>

>Subject: Re: An Inconvenient TRUTH

>Bcc: ƒ\Longevity

>

>Hi:

>

>BTW, show me a single peer-reviewed scientific article that refutes

>that human activities are involved with global warming - which you

>probably cannot - and I'll show you nearly 1,000 peer reviewed

>articles that support that. As for Mars global warming here is the

>real information, not the oil company propaganda:

>

>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

>

>

>

>At 06:12 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:

>

>

>>Interesting that all planets in our system are experiencing warming

>>due to a sun cycle.

>>

>>Ice caps on Mars are melting ...... probably due to the 2

>>Rovers...... not....

>>

>>False science ....

>>

>>At 01:01 AM 6/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:

>> >the movie with Al Gore,

>> >and the website:

>> >http;//www.climatecrisis.net

>> >

>> >

>> >Carol

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but

>> >under no circumstances should any information published here be

>> >considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified

>> >physician. -the owner

>> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi:

If you think that I did not respond to the issue of Mars Global

warming, you did not catch up on all your posts. I posted a link to

the following (opening paragraph copied below). This is from the

Climate Science site and the consensus of climate scientists is that

the opinion that global warming is being caused by increased solar

output is not valid:

----------

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192>Global warming on Mars?

Filed under:

*

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>Climate

Science

*

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-eart\

h-connections/>Sun-earth

connections

*

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/climate-\

modelling/>Climate

modelling

* <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/>FAQ

­ group @ 11:21 am -

(<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/f\

r/>

fr flag

)

Guest contribution by <http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/steinn/>Steinn

Sigurdsson.

Recently, there have been some suggestions that " global warming " has

been observed on Mars (e.g.

<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews & summit=AutosSum\

mit05 & storyid=2005-09-21T013927Z_01_KWA105917_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPACE-MARS.xml>here).

These are based on observations of regional change around the South

Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a " global " change, and

used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming

on Earth and Mars (e.g.

<http://instapundit.com/archives/025681.php>here and

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011741.php>here). But this is

incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

----------

It is clear that it is the belief system of those who don't want to

change the way we do things that is at issue here, not my belief

system. My mind is open and I look carefully at scientific observations.

The entrenched status quo believers keep changing their arguments as

the zeitgeist has begun to accept global warming as a

reality. Firstly, for the past 40 years their claims have centered

around that global warming was not happening, despite scientific

studies dating back to the late 1950s and early 1960s implicating

man-made carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions as a cause for

global warming. Now that it has become very clear that global

warming is happening, the claim of those true believers in the status

quo has changed to " human activities are not causing global

warming. " Ergo, we don't have to change. That is the conclusion

that they're after.

You referred to me as a " true believer " ignoring something that

doesn't " fit my zeitgeist, " but in reality, zeitgeist refers to " the

general culture, education, and morals of a given era " and not to a

given person or group's belief system or philosophy. As in " the

zeitgeist of that era held that the Earth was the center of the

universe. " The zeitgeist with regard to global warming is currently

in a state of flux, that it is happening is nearly well-established

in our current zeitgeist. The current zeitgeist is muddy with

respect to what is causing global warming, mostly because of the

propaganda of vested interests that do not want to change the status quo.

<http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976745206>Phoenix

Rises (Again) on Global Warming

Tell me, who is silencing the scientists (who are in a small

minority) that don't believe human activities are the major cause of

global warming? Yet, and this is just one example, NASA scientist

Jim Hansen was silenced because of the Bush administration's

opposition to mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases that many

scientists tie to global warming.

Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that whatever is causing it,

global warming is accelerating and that the earlier predictions of

rising sea levels by 2100 to 2200 are way too conservative. The rate

of deterioration of Greenland's ice cap has tripled in the past few

years as one given example. See the article linked below. The same

thing is occurring in Antarctica.

The mechanism for this was not predicted in any of the earlier

computer models. As warm water melts at the top of the glaciers, it

creates channels through the ice all the way to the bottom of the

glacier, accelerating the melting of the glacier and the movement of

the glacier toward the sea. The rate has tripled in the last decade

and this observation has been confirmed by several scientists. The

climate and atmospheric science communities are rushing to do

additional studies to get a better understand of this unexpected

glacial movement rate increase.

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines>Research

by NASA Scientist Jay Zwally (review article in popular press)

<http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>Oceanus

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20>New

Scientist Space

It may be that sea levels will rise much faster than previously

predicted if this rate of movement toward the sea and breakup

continues to accelerate. Even now, disease bearing insects are

moving North and to much higher altitudes, bringing malaria and other

diseases to places that have never before seen them. All of our

lives may be at stake in the not too distant future as disease

increases, weather becomes more severe and coastal areas are

inundated. For this reason, this subject is definitely on-topic for

this group. Our lives and health are at stake no matter what your

belief system with regard to the origin.

Can we do anything about all this?

At 08:49 PM 7/2/2006, you wrote:

>Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

>

>Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact that Mars

>is also experiencing global warming?

>

>Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but it's

>pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address anything

>that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

>

> Brown wrote:

> >

> > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> >

> > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

> > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

> > and the other oil barons (

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regu\

lation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html> ). (By the way,

> > even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

> > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

> > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is proceeding...)

> >

> > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

> > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

> > is negligible).

> >

> >

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> >

>

<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html>htt\

p://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html

>

> >

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html>

> >

> > Well, I'm off to see film. Three cheers to Al Gore for having the

> > guts to stand up against the huge energy corporations!

> >

> >

> >

> > At 06:12 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:

> >

> > >Interesting that all planets in our system are experiencing warming

> > >due to a sun cycle.

> > >

> > >Ice caps on Mars are melting ...... probably due to the 2

> > Rovers...... not....

> > >

> > >False science ....

> > >

> > >At 01:01 AM 6/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:

> > > >the movie with Al Gore,

> > > >and the website:

> > > >http;//www.climatecrisis.net

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >Carol

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but

> > > >under no circumstances should any information published here be

> > > >considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified

> > > >physician. -the owner

> > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hey, I'll do you one better.

Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & b\

tnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_n\

lo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

Apricot85 wrote:

>

> Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find' function for

> work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

>

> I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money trail more

> than any

> pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> scientists have

> a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> overlooking Mars?

> Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were surveyed

> about the movie

> & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie to be

> extremely accurate.

>

> I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> some of

> self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> thought the self -promotion

> was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as only the

> science presentation, it

> was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We will see

> huge effects of GW in

> our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

>

> Dave Narby wrote:

>

> > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> >

> > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact that Mars

> > is also experiencing global warming?

> >

> > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but it's

> > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address anything

> > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> >

> > Brown wrote:

> > >

> > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > >

> > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

> > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

> > > and the other oil barons (

> > > http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>> ). (By the way,

> > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

> > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

> > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> proceeding...)

> > >

> > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

> > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

> > > is negligible).

> > >

> > > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> >

> >

> >

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

So within your prediction, how do you propose that anyone will ever

prove who caused what?

No one in their right mind would ever propose that global warming and

cooling does not happen.

The problem will always be in objectively proving what caused the

change. The advocates

of human intervention will swear they are correct, no matter what

happens and no one will be

able to prove them wrong... just as your side will go on claiming that

they are wrong. I think that

you are probably correct, but if you are not, the future of human life

on this planet stands at

risk . On the other side of the coin, if we were not taking most other

forms of life down with us,

that may be a good thing.

Dave Narby wrote:

> Hey, I'll do you one better.

>

> Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM.

>

>

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & b\

tnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_n\

lo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

>

> I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

> revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

>

> Apricot85 wrote:

> >

> > Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find'

> function for

> > work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

> >

> > I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money trail more

> > than any

> > pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> > scientists have

> > a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> > overlooking Mars?

> > Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were surveyed

> > about the movie

> > & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie to be

> > extremely accurate.

> >

> > I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> > some of

> > self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> > thought the self -promotion

> > was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as only the

> > science presentation, it

> > was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We will see

> > huge effects of GW in

> > our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

> >

> > Dave Narby wrote:

> >

> > > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> > >

> > > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact

> that Mars

> > > is also experiencing global warming?

> > >

> > > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but

> it's

> > > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address

> anything

> > > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> > >

> > > Brown wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > > >

> > > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> > > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

> > > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

> > > > and the other oil barons (

> > > > http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>> ). (By the way,

> > > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

> > > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

> > > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> > > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> > proceeding...)

> > > >

> > > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

> > > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

> > > > is negligible).

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi:

My current perspective, that human activity is very likely the major

cause of global warming is not because I am a believer in some

political agenda, but because it is the conclusion of the balance of

scientific studies. If this changes, so will my perspective.

<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>Science Magazine

Even if anthropogenic causes were not the primary source of global

warming, because of the potential consequences, no matter what the

mechanism, it is likely to eventually be extremely disastrous for the

planet and we should work toward a strong course of action to stop or

reverse the global warming trend.

The concept that global warming on other planets in our solar system

may indicate that the cause of global warming is not primarily the

result of vastly increased greenhouse gasses in the Earth's

atmosphere has been examined and rejected by the scientists who

understand this best:

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/>C\

limate

Science

Nevertheless, I agree that there are a lot of murky studies in the

field of global warming based on unproven computer models. No one

can predict, for example, what will happen in 100 years, that is

absurd. Our computer models can't even predict weather a few days in

advance, let alone many years in advance. We all, on both sides of

the " what is causing global warming " debate, must stick to facts and

data and not political conclusions.

It has been established, however that atmospheric CO2 and global

temperature correspond in proportion to each other. During the past

600,000 years there have been cyclic periods of warming and cooling

with atmospheric CO2 quantity leading the trend. The more CO2, the

warmer. Finally, we know that currently we have more than double the

CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 600,000 years as

determined by atmospheric bubbles in ice cores. In addition, most of

the hottest years on record have occurred within the last 10 years.

How fast global warming will progress is not possible to

predict. There is insufficient data to know that. There are

contributions from solar output, from greenhouse gasses trapping

heat, from clouds reflecting the heat of the Sun, etc. All of this

is very poorly quantified and not well understood.

We do know that glaciers all over the world are disappearing. We do

know that in the past 5 years, some of Greenland's glaciers have

literally tripled the speed at which they march toward the sea.

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines>Research

by NASA Scientist Jay Zwally (review article in popular press)

<http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>Oceanus

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20>New

Scientist Space

The consequences for humans will be disastrous if this trend

continues. Already mosquito borne disease has significantly risen to

much higher altitudes in mountains all around the world. Many other

mechanisms for human disease could easily be increased by the global

warming trend. Billions of people live at or near sea level and

countless cities and towns could face destruction by rising seas.

Regardless of the cause, what are we going to do about it?

At 07:42 AM 7/13/2006, you wrote:

>So within your prediction, how do you propose that anyone will ever

>prove who caused what?

>

>No one in their right mind would ever propose that global warming and

>cooling does not happen.

>The problem will always be in objectively proving what caused the

>change. The advocates

>of human intervention will swear they are correct, no matter what

>happens and no one will be

>able to prove them wrong... just as your side will go on claiming that

>they are wrong. I think that

>you are probably correct, but if you are not, the future of human life

>on this planet stands at

>risk . On the other side of the coin, if we were not taking most other

>forms of life down with us,

>that may be a good thing.

>

>Dave Narby wrote:

>

> > Hey, I'll do you one better.

> >

> > Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM.

> >

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>http://ww\

w.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Googl\

e+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nh\

i= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

> >

> > I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

> > revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

> >

> > Apricot85 wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find'

> > function for

> > > work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

> > >

> > > I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money trail more

> > > than any

> > > pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> > > scientists have

> > > a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> > > overlooking Mars?

> > > Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were surveyed

> > > about the movie

> > > & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie to be

> > > extremely accurate.

> > >

> > > I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> > > some of

> > > self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> > > thought the self -promotion

> > > was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as only the

> > > science presentation, it

> > > was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We will see

> > > huge effects of GW in

> > > our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

> > >

> > > Dave Narby wrote:

> > >

> > > > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> > > >

> > > > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact

> > that Mars

> > > > is also experiencing global warming?

> > > >

> > > > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but

> > it's

> > > > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address

> > anything

> > > > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> > > >

> > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > > > >

> > > > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> > > > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda for the

> > > > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by Bush

> > > > > and the other oil barons (

> > > > >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regu\

lation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>> ). (By the way,

> > > > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched their

> > > > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing global

> > > > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> > > > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> > > proceeding...)

> > > > >

> > > > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human activity is

> > > > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of the Sun

> > > > > is negligible).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

....What?!

If all the other planets are warming, do you really think it's within

our power to stop it from happening on this planet?!?

Here's some advice - when Mother Nature decides she's gonna do

something... MOVE..!

Jim wrote:

>

> So within your prediction, how do you propose that anyone will ever

> prove who caused what?

>

> No one in their right mind would ever propose that global warming and

> cooling does not happen.

> The problem will always be in objectively proving what caused the

> change. The advocates

> of human intervention will swear they are correct, no matter what

> happens and no one will be

> able to prove them wrong... just as your side will go on claiming that

> they are wrong. I think that

> you are probably correct, but if you are not, the future of human life

> on this planet stands at

> risk . On the other side of the coin, if we were not taking most other

> forms of life down with us,

> that may be a good thing.

>

> Dave Narby wrote:

>

> > Hey, I'll do you one better.

> >

> > Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR

> SYSTEM.

> >

> >

>

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & b\

tnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_n\

lo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

>

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>

> >

> > I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

> > revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

> >

> > Apricot85 wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find'

> > function for

> > > work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

> > >

> > > I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money trail more

> > > than any

> > > pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> > > scientists have

> > > a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> > > overlooking Mars?

> > > Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were surveyed

> > > about the movie

> > > & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie to be

> > > extremely accurate.

> > >

> > > I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> > > some of

> > > self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> > > thought the self -promotion

> > > was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as only the

> > > science presentation, it

> > > was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We will see

> > > huge effects of GW in

> > > our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

> > >

> > > Dave Narby wrote:

> > >

> > > > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> > > >

> > > > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact

> > that Mars

> > > > is also experiencing global warming?

> > > >

> > > > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but

> > it's

> > > > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address

> > anything

> > > > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> > > >

> > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > > > >

> > > > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global warming from

> > > > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda

> for the

> > > > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by

> Bush

> > > > > and the other oil barons (

> > > > > http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>

> > > > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>> ). (By the way,

> > > > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year switched

> their

> > > > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing

> global

> > > > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and geographical

> > > > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> > > proceeding...)

> > > > >

> > > > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human

> activity is

> > > > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of

> the Sun

> > > > > is negligible).

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>

> > > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

So how do you explain the fact that all the planets in the solar system

are warming...?

Brown wrote:

>

> Hi:

>

> My current perspective, that human activity is very likely the major

> cause of global warming is not because I am a believer in some

> political agenda, but because it is the conclusion of the balance of

> scientific studies. If this changes, so will my perspective.

>

> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>>Science

> Magazine

>

> Even if anthropogenic causes were not the primary source of global

> warming, because of the potential consequences, no matter what the

> mechanism, it is likely to eventually be extremely disastrous for the

> planet and we should work toward a strong course of action to stop or

> reverse the global warming trend.

>

> The concept that global warming on other planets in our solar system

> may indicate that the cause of global warming is not primarily the

> result of vastly increased greenhouse gasses in the Earth's

> atmosphere has been examined and rejected by the scientists who

> understand this best:

>

> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

>

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/>>\

Climate

>

> Science

>

> Nevertheless, I agree that there are a lot of murky studies in the

> field of global warming based on unproven computer models. No one

> can predict, for example, what will happen in 100 years, that is

> absurd. Our computer models can't even predict weather a few days in

> advance, let alone many years in advance. We all, on both sides of

> the " what is causing global warming " debate, must stick to facts and

> data and not political conclusions.

>

> It has been established, however that atmospheric CO2 and global

> temperature correspond in proportion to each other. During the past

> 600,000 years there have been cyclic periods of warming and cooling

> with atmospheric CO2 quantity leading the trend. The more CO2, the

> warmer. Finally, we know that currently we have more than double the

> CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 600,000 years as

> determined by atmospheric bubbles in ice cores. In addition, most of

> the hottest years on record have occurred within the last 10 years.

>

> How fast global warming will progress is not possible to

> predict. There is insufficient data to know that. There are

> contributions from solar output, from greenhouse gasses trapping

> heat, from clouds reflecting the heat of the Sun, etc. All of this

> is very poorly quantified and not well understood.

>

> We do know that glaciers all over the world are disappearing. We do

> know that in the past 5 years, some of Greenland's glaciers have

> literally tripled the speed at which they march toward the sea.

>

>

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines

>

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines>>Research

>

> by NASA Scientist Jay Zwally (review article in popular press)

>

> <http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126

> <http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>>Oceanus

>

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20

>

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20>>New

>

> Scientist Space

>

> The consequences for humans will be disastrous if this trend

> continues. Already mosquito borne disease has significantly risen to

> much higher altitudes in mountains all around the world. Many other

> mechanisms for human disease could easily be increased by the global

> warming trend. Billions of people live at or near sea level and

> countless cities and towns could face destruction by rising seas.

>

> Regardless of the cause, what are we going to do about it?

>

>

>

> At 07:42 AM 7/13/2006, you wrote:

>

> >So within your prediction, how do you propose that anyone will ever

> >prove who caused what?

> >

> >No one in their right mind would ever propose that global warming and

> >cooling does not happen.

> >The problem will always be in objectively proving what caused the

> >change. The advocates

> >of human intervention will swear they are correct, no matter what

> >happens and no one will be

> >able to prove them wrong... just as your side will go on claiming that

> >they are wrong. I think that

> >you are probably correct, but if you are not, the future of human life

> >on this planet stands at

> >risk . On the other side of the coin, if we were not taking most other

> >forms of life down with us,

> >that may be a good thing.

> >

> >Dave Narby wrote:

> >

> > > Hey, I'll do you one better.

> > >

> > > Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR

> SYSTEM.

> > >

> > >

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>http://w\

ww.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Goog\

le+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_n\

hi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

>

> >

> > >

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>

> > >

> > > I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

> > > revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

> > >

> > > Apricot85 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find'

> > > function for

> > > > work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

> > > >

> > > > I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money

> trail more

> > > > than any

> > > > pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> > > > scientists have

> > > > a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> > > > overlooking Mars?

> > > > Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were

> surveyed

> > > > about the movie

> > > > & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie

> to be

> > > > extremely accurate.

> > > >

> > > > I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> > > > some of

> > > > self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> > > > thought the self -promotion

> > > > was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as

> only the

> > > > science presentation, it

> > > > was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We

> will see

> > > > huge effects of GW in

> > > > our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

> > > >

> > > > Dave Narby wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> > > > >

> > > > > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact

> > > that Mars

> > > > > is also experiencing global warming?

> > > > >

> > > > > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but

> > > it's

> > > > > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address

> > > anything

> > > > > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global

> warming from

> > > > > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > > > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda

> for the

> > > > > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by

> Bush

> > > > > > and the other oil barons (

> > > > > >

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>

> > > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>> ). (By the way,

> > > > > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year

> switched their

> > > > > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing

> global

> > > > > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > > > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and

> geographical

> > > > > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> > > > proceeding...)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human

> activity is

> > > > > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of

> the Sun

> > > > > > is negligible).

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

:

Do you really think that the human population could reverse its course

at this late date even if everyone agreed that global warming is caused

by humans? I don't. If we could somehow neutralize current scientific

dogma and get research off of Hot Fusion (generic example) and turn

attention to the science of Tesla, there may be a glimmer of hope,

but I don't see it as a possibility.

On the other front, I am totally amazed that many otherwise rational

people

see old technology nuclear fission and breeder reactors as Green. We

could end our concerns very quickly with a Chernobyl or TMI with only a

very slightly different outcome. The USSR almost did in Europe and TMI

came very close to zapping the northeast for an indefinite period of time.

This as we store spent fuel rods at every nuke plant in the world.

Jim

Brown wrote:

> Hi:

>

> My current perspective, that human activity is very likely the major

> cause of global warming is not because I am a believer in some

> political agenda, but because it is the conclusion of the balance of

> scientific studies. If this changes, so will my perspective.

>

> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>>Science

> Magazine

>

> Even if anthropogenic causes were not the primary source of global

> warming, because of the potential consequences, no matter what the

> mechanism, it is likely to eventually be extremely disastrous for the

> planet and we should work toward a strong course of action to stop or

> reverse the global warming trend.

>

> The concept that global warming on other planets in our solar system

> may indicate that the cause of global warming is not primarily the

> result of vastly increased greenhouse gasses in the Earth's

> atmosphere has been examined and rejected by the scientists who

> understand this best:

>

> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

>

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/>>\

Climate

>

> Science

>

> Nevertheless, I agree that there are a lot of murky studies in the

> field of global warming based on unproven computer models. No one

> can predict, for example, what will happen in 100 years, that is

> absurd. Our computer models can't even predict weather a few days in

> advance, let alone many years in advance. We all, on both sides of

> the " what is causing global warming " debate, must stick to facts and

> data and not political conclusions.

>

> It has been established, however that atmospheric CO2 and global

> temperature correspond in proportion to each other. During the past

> 600,000 years there have been cyclic periods of warming and cooling

> with atmospheric CO2 quantity leading the trend. The more CO2, the

> warmer. Finally, we know that currently we have more than double the

> CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 600,000 years as

> determined by atmospheric bubbles in ice cores. In addition, most of

> the hottest years on record have occurred within the last 10 years.

>

> How fast global warming will progress is not possible to

> predict. There is insufficient data to know that. There are

> contributions from solar output, from greenhouse gasses trapping

> heat, from clouds reflecting the heat of the Sun, etc. All of this

> is very poorly quantified and not well understood.

>

> We do know that glaciers all over the world are disappearing. We do

> know that in the past 5 years, some of Greenland's glaciers have

> literally tripled the speed at which they march toward the sea.

>

>

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines

>

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines>>Research

>

> by NASA Scientist Jay Zwally (review article in popular press)

>

> <http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126

> <http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>>Oceanus

>

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20

>

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20>>New

>

> Scientist Space

>

> The consequences for humans will be disastrous if this trend

> continues. Already mosquito borne disease has significantly risen to

> much higher altitudes in mountains all around the world. Many other

> mechanisms for human disease could easily be increased by the global

> warming trend. Billions of people live at or near sea level and

> countless cities and towns could face destruction by rising seas.

>

> Regardless of the cause, what are we going to do about it?

>

>

>

> At 07:42 AM 7/13/2006, you wrote:

>

> >So within your prediction, how do you propose that anyone will ever

> >prove who caused what?

> >

> >No one in their right mind would ever propose that global warming and

> >cooling does not happen.

> >The problem will always be in objectively proving what caused the

> >change. The advocates

> >of human intervention will swear they are correct, no matter what

> >happens and no one will be

> >able to prove them wrong... just as your side will go on claiming that

> >they are wrong. I think that

> >you are probably correct, but if you are not, the future of human life

> >on this planet stands at

> >risk . On the other side of the coin, if we were not taking most other

> >forms of life down with us,

> >that may be a good thing.

> >

> >Dave Narby wrote:

> >

> > > Hey, I'll do you one better.

> > >

> > > Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR

> SYSTEM.

> > >

> > >

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>http://w\

ww.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Goog\

le+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_n\

hi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

>

> >

> > >

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>

> > >

> > > I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

> > > revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

> > >

> > > Apricot85 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find'

> > > function for

> > > > work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

> > > >

> > > > I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money

> trail more

> > > > than any

> > > > pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> > > > scientists have

> > > > a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> > > > overlooking Mars?

> > > > Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were

> surveyed

> > > > about the movie

> > > > & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie

> to be

> > > > extremely accurate.

> > > >

> > > > I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> > > > some of

> > > > self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> > > > thought the self -promotion

> > > > was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as

> only the

> > > > science presentation, it

> > > > was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We

> will see

> > > > huge effects of GW in

> > > > our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

> > > >

> > > > Dave Narby wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> > > > >

> > > > > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact

> > > that Mars

> > > > > is also experiencing global warming?

> > > > >

> > > > > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but

> > > it's

> > > > > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address

> > > anything

> > > > > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global

> warming from

> > > > > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > > > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda

> for the

> > > > > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by

> Bush

> > > > > > and the other oil barons (

> > > > > >

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>

> > > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>> ). (By the way,

> > > > > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year

> switched their

> > > > > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing

> global

> > > > > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > > > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and

> geographical

> > > > > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> > > > proceeding...)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human

> activity is

> > > > > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of

> the Sun

> > > > > > is negligible).

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

YO, SCOTT!!!

....How do you explain the fact that all the planets in the solar system

are also warming?

Brown wrote:

>

> Hi:

>

> My current perspective, that human activity is very likely the major

> cause of global warming is not because I am a believer in some

> political agenda, but because it is the conclusion of the balance of

> scientific studies. If this changes, so will my perspective.

>

> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>>Science

> Magazine

>

> Even if anthropogenic causes were not the primary source of global

> warming, because of the potential consequences, no matter what the

> mechanism, it is likely to eventually be extremely disastrous for the

> planet and we should work toward a strong course of action to stop or

> reverse the global warming trend.

>

> The concept that global warming on other planets in our solar system

> may indicate that the cause of global warming is not primarily the

> result of vastly increased greenhouse gasses in the Earth's

> atmosphere has been examined and rejected by the scientists who

> understand this best:

>

> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

>

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/>>\

Climate

>

> Science

>

> Nevertheless, I agree that there are a lot of murky studies in the

> field of global warming based on unproven computer models. No one

> can predict, for example, what will happen in 100 years, that is

> absurd. Our computer models can't even predict weather a few days in

> advance, let alone many years in advance. We all, on both sides of

> the " what is causing global warming " debate, must stick to facts and

> data and not political conclusions.

>

> It has been established, however that atmospheric CO2 and global

> temperature correspond in proportion to each other. During the past

> 600,000 years there have been cyclic periods of warming and cooling

> with atmospheric CO2 quantity leading the trend. The more CO2, the

> warmer. Finally, we know that currently we have more than double the

> CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 600,000 years as

> determined by atmospheric bubbles in ice cores. In addition, most of

> the hottest years on record have occurred within the last 10 years.

>

> How fast global warming will progress is not possible to

> predict. There is insufficient data to know that. There are

> contributions from solar output, from greenhouse gasses trapping

> heat, from clouds reflecting the heat of the Sun, etc. All of this

> is very poorly quantified and not well understood.

>

> We do know that glaciers all over the world are disappearing. We do

> know that in the past 5 years, some of Greenland's glaciers have

> literally tripled the speed at which they march toward the sea.

>

>

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines

>

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines>>Research

>

> by NASA Scientist Jay Zwally (review article in popular press)

>

> <http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126

> <http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>>Oceanus

>

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20

>

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20>>New

>

> Scientist Space

>

> The consequences for humans will be disastrous if this trend

> continues. Already mosquito borne disease has significantly risen to

> much higher altitudes in mountains all around the world. Many other

> mechanisms for human disease could easily be increased by the global

> warming trend. Billions of people live at or near sea level and

> countless cities and towns could face destruction by rising seas.

>

> Regardless of the cause, what are we going to do about it?

>

>

>

> At 07:42 AM 7/13/2006, you wrote:

>

> >So within your prediction, how do you propose that anyone will ever

> >prove who caused what?

> >

> >No one in their right mind would ever propose that global warming and

> >cooling does not happen.

> >The problem will always be in objectively proving what caused the

> >change. The advocates

> >of human intervention will swear they are correct, no matter what

> >happens and no one will be

> >able to prove them wrong... just as your side will go on claiming that

> >they are wrong. I think that

> >you are probably correct, but if you are not, the future of human life

> >on this planet stands at

> >risk . On the other side of the coin, if we were not taking most other

> >forms of life down with us,

> >that may be a good thing.

> >

> >Dave Narby wrote:

> >

> > > Hey, I'll do you one better.

> > >

> > > Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR

> SYSTEM.

> > >

> > >

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>http://w\

ww.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Goog\

le+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_n\

hi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

>

> >

> > >

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>

> > >

> > > I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

> > > revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

> > >

> > > Apricot85 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find'

> > > function for

> > > > work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

> > > >

> > > > I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money

> trail more

> > > > than any

> > > > pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> > > > scientists have

> > > > a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> > > > overlooking Mars?

> > > > Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were

> surveyed

> > > > about the movie

> > > > & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie

> to be

> > > > extremely accurate.

> > > >

> > > > I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> > > > some of

> > > > self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> > > > thought the self -promotion

> > > > was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as

> only the

> > > > science presentation, it

> > > > was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We

> will see

> > > > huge effects of GW in

> > > > our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

> > > >

> > > > Dave Narby wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> > > > >

> > > > > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact

> > > that Mars

> > > > > is also experiencing global warming?

> > > > >

> > > > > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but

> > > it's

> > > > > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address

> > > anything

> > > > > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global

> warming from

> > > > > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > > > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda

> for the

> > > > > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by

> Bush

> > > > > > and the other oil barons (

> > > > > >

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>

> > > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> >

> > > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>> ). (By the way,

> > > > > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year

> switched their

> > > > > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing

> global

> > > > > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > > > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and

> geographical

> > > > > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> > > > proceeding...)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human

> activity is

> > > > > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of

> the Sun

> > > > > > is negligible).

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>

> > > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > >

> > <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jim,

Nuclear works, Fusion is a long shot (IMHO JET is the wrong method), the

Tesla ideas may not work; if they do work, they may cause unexpected

catastrophic damage and be uneconomical to run i.e. where does all the

power come from (nuclear?) and what happens when you blast Giga-Watts of

power into the ground or atmosphere?

Nuclear power plants have probably the highest power density of any

known usable power source, fossil fuel power plants are nowhere near as

dense and have much greater overall carbon costs *, and most

'sustainable' power sources either have low power density (wind power),

cause environmental damage (sea power schemes) or have a net _negative_

power output after construction or transport cost (solar panels and

plant based fuels)!

* I'm still not convinced that global warming works via a so called

carbon dioxide Green House effect, given how the atmosphere charges

with energy (or maybe tidal) energy from the Sun, maybe energy from the

Earth rock, and discharges energy to the earth surface, while allowing

other energy to escape into space. The key problem with this Green

House nonsense is that most of what keeps the surface of the earth warm

does not come from sunlight striking the surface of the earth!

A recent Horizon TV program on BBC 2 (UK), detailed how scientists have

looked at not just the humans evacuated from around Chernobyl, but also

the wildlife which stayed in the hottest radiation area near the

reactor; the wildlife is thriving, despite being radioactive and the

expected human effects were _much_ smaller than expected. Air plane

crews were also looked at, where radiation exposure was an order of

magnitude higher than 'normal' background radiation, but who suffered no

ill effects from it. Scientists even looked at a part of Iran where the

natural background radiation is shockingly high, yet it had no ill

effects on the inhabitants. The reason for this surprising lack of ill

effects was because natural anti-radiation genes were observed to become

became activate in both humans and the wildlife, in higher radiation

areas, so protecting them. Even more surprising is that people living

in higher background radiation areas of the USA have lower rates of

cancer, thus some radiation seems to be beneficial. The scientist who

studied this issue said that these findings cast serious doubt on the

validity of the standard radiation exposure model.

Most nuclear power stations are required to put out less radiation than

an aircraft flight, yet daily coal power stations spew out more

radioactivity, from the natural radioactive elements in coal, this would

suggest nuclear is not as bad as appears!

What we need to do now is cut the FUD *, improve power transmission

efficiencies and have enough nuclear reactors to at worst buy us time to

develop powerful enough alternatives power sources (it could take

several decades), or possibly consider nuclear a long term power source,

given there is so much radioactive material that there are even natural

water enabled nuclear reactors, in at least one rock formation! There

are even some newer nuclear reactor types being developed which use

similar fail safe principles e.g in Japan and China. Nature already

safely handles nuclear waste and nobody complains, so why can't we learn

from this?

* It is deceit to think that we can reduce electrical power consumption

much, given that consumer and industry power consumption is likely to

rise as technology progresses e.g. larger screen TVs, faster computers,

robotics and other utility machinery etc.

Jim wrote:

> :

> Do you really think that the human population could reverse its course

> at this late date even if everyone agreed that global warming is caused

> by humans? I don't. If we could somehow neutralize current scientific

> dogma and get research off of Hot Fusion (generic example) and turn

> attention to the science of Tesla, there may be a glimmer of hope,

> but I don't see it as a possibility.

>

> On the other front, I am totally amazed that many otherwise rational

> people

> see old technology nuclear fission and breeder reactors as Green. We

> could end our concerns very quickly with a Chernobyl or TMI with only a

> very slightly different outcome. The USSR almost did in Europe and TMI

> came very close to zapping the northeast for an indefinite period of time.

> This as we store spent fuel rods at every nuke plant in the world.

>

> Jim

>

> Brown wrote:

>

... cut..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Chernobyl never got close to what it could have been even though it killed

most of people who worked on the amelioration according to the Discovery

Documentary aired recently. They said that virtually all of the first

crews died.

So who is right? I know that I do not want to test it myself.

Not only is Nuclear dangerous, the present form is not at all well

conceived.

There may be some application for nuclear that are quite excellent, but we

have not yet found them. Nevertheless, it still requires a fuel

source and

we will eventually run out of Uranium.

Tesla was correct when his said that using fuel to create energy is the

wrong way to go about it. When you speak of density, you are speaking

of fuel. Zero Point Energy has no density and it will never run out.

It is a fact and Tesla was certainly onto it. Since the Government

destroyed a

lot of his work, we may never know how far he actually got with it,

but his Pierce Arrow experiment was verified by quite a few reliable

people. It is said

that he drove the car for a week at speeds up to 90mph with not outside

source

of fuel... power density? Cold Fusion is a fact. I have seen it

work. Black Light Power's

work looks very good also. My opinion is that they are just another

form of Zero

Point Energy, but they are certainly real.

New Energy solutions can probably all be turned into weapons...

just as Nuclear can. They undoubtedly have been. That was what the

Star Wars

program was about.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8943205214784769158

nospam.rwp@... wrote:

> Jim,

>

> Nuclear works, Fusion is a long shot (IMHO JET is the wrong method), the

> Tesla ideas may not work; if they do work, they may cause unexpected

> catastrophic damage and be uneconomical to run i.e. where does all the

> power come from (nuclear?) and what happens when you blast Giga-Watts of

> power into the ground or atmosphere?

>

> Nuclear power plants have probably the highest power density of any

> known usable power source, fossil fuel power plants are nowhere near as

> dense and have much greater overall carbon costs *, and most

> 'sustainable' power sources either have low power density (wind power),

> cause environmental damage (sea power schemes) or have a net _negative_

> power output after construction or transport cost (solar panels and

> plant based fuels)!

>

> * I'm still not convinced that global warming works via a so called

> carbon dioxide Green House effect, given how the atmosphere charges

> with energy (or maybe tidal) energy from the Sun, maybe energy from the

> Earth rock, and discharges energy to the earth surface, while allowing

> other energy to escape into space. The key problem with this Green

> House nonsense is that most of what keeps the surface of the earth warm

> does not come from sunlight striking the surface of the earth!

>

> A recent Horizon TV program on BBC 2 (UK), detailed how scientists have

> looked at not just the humans evacuated from around Chernobyl, but also

> the wildlife which stayed in the hottest radiation area near the

> reactor; the wildlife is thriving, despite being radioactive and the

> expected human effects were _much_ smaller than expected. Air plane

> crews were also looked at, where radiation exposure was an order of

> magnitude higher than 'normal' background radiation, but who suffered no

> ill effects from it. Scientists even looked at a part of Iran where the

> natural background radiation is shockingly high, yet it had no ill

> effects on the inhabitants. The reason for this surprising lack of ill

> effects was because natural anti-radiation genes were observed to become

> became activate in both humans and the wildlife, in higher radiation

> areas, so protecting them. Even more surprising is that people living

> in higher background radiation areas of the USA have lower rates of

> cancer, thus some radiation seems to be beneficial. The scientist who

> studied this issue said that these findings cast serious doubt on the

> validity of the standard radiation exposure model.

>

> Most nuclear power stations are required to put out less radiation than

> an aircraft flight, yet daily coal power stations spew out more

> radioactivity, from the natural radioactive elements in coal, this would

> suggest nuclear is not as bad as appears!

>

> What we need to do now is cut the FUD *, improve power transmission

> efficiencies and have enough nuclear reactors to at worst buy us time to

> develop powerful enough alternatives power sources (it could take

> several decades), or possibly consider nuclear a long term power source,

> given there is so much radioactive material that there are even natural

> water enabled nuclear reactors, in at least one rock formation! There

> are even some newer nuclear reactor types being developed which use

> similar fail safe principles e.g in Japan and China. Nature already

> safely handles nuclear waste and nobody complains, so why can't we learn

> from this?

>

> * It is deceit to think that we can reduce electrical power consumption

> much, given that consumer and industry power consumption is likely to

> rise as technology progresses e.g. larger screen TVs, faster computers,

> robotics and other utility machinery etc.

>

>

>

> Jim wrote:

> > :

> > Do you really think that the human population could reverse its course

> > at this late date even if everyone agreed that global warming is caused

> > by humans? I don't. If we could somehow neutralize current scientific

> > dogma and get research off of Hot Fusion (generic example) and turn

> > attention to the science of Tesla, there may be a glimmer of hope,

> > but I don't see it as a possibility.

> >

> > On the other front, I am totally amazed that many otherwise rational

> > people

> > see old technology nuclear fission and breeder reactors as Green. We

> > could end our concerns very quickly with a Chernobyl or TMI with only a

> > very slightly different outcome. The USSR almost did in Europe and TMI

> > came very close to zapping the northeast for an indefinite period of

> time.

> > This as we store spent fuel rods at every nuke plant in the world.

> >

> > Jim

> >

> > Brown wrote:

> >

> .. cut..

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Except that not all the planets in the solar system are also warming.

No documentation exists to show that trend.

Best regards,

Celeste

Dave Narby wrote:

> ...How do you explain the fact that all the planets in the solar system

> are also warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dave,

What exactly is it that makes you think that all the planets in the

solar system are warming?

Best regards,

Celeste

Dave Narby wrote:

> So how do you explain the fact that all the planets in the solar system

> are warming...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Dave:

I guess you didn't read the article at realclimate.org. Even if Mars

or Pluto were getting hotter it does not prove that the Earth's

warming is due to the same cause and it especially does not mean that

if there is a common cause e.g. Solar output increase or some other

common effect, that the majority of the Earth's increased heat is

caused by that. Anything that states that without repeatable studies

is not science. It is speculation. Many repeatable studies have

been done in relation to greenhouse gases. If we didn't have the

greenhouse gas effect, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland and that

is well-established. We just now have over double what we've had at

any time for the past 43 million years. What a coincidence!

At 09:33 AM 7/15/2006, you wrote:

>YO, SCOTT!!!

>

>...How do you explain the fact that all the planets in the solar system

>are also warming?

>

> Brown wrote:

> >

> > Hi:

> >

> > My current perspective, that human activity is very likely the major

> > cause of global warming is not because I am a believer in some

> > political agenda, but because it is the conclusion of the balance of

> > scientific studies. If this changes, so will my perspective.

> >

> >

>

<<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>http://www.sciencemag\

..org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

>

> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>>Science

> > Magazine

> >

> > Even if anthropogenic causes were not the primary source of global

> > warming, because of the potential consequences, no matter what the

> > mechanism, it is likely to eventually be extremely disastrous for the

> > planet and we should work toward a strong course of action to stop or

> > reverse the global warming trend.

> >

> > The concept that global warming on other planets in our solar system

> > may indicate that the cause of global warming is not primarily the

> > result of vastly increased greenhouse gasses in the Earth's

> > atmosphere has been examined and rejected by the scientists who

> > understand this best:

> >

> >

>

<<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/>\

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

>

> >

>

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/>>\

Climate

>

> >

> > Science

> >

> > Nevertheless, I agree that there are a lot of murky studies in the

> > field of global warming based on unproven computer models. No one

> > can predict, for example, what will happen in 100 years, that is

> > absurd. Our computer models can't even predict weather a few days in

> > advance, let alone many years in advance. We all, on both sides of

> > the " what is causing global warming " debate, must stick to facts and

> > data and not political conclusions.

> >

> > It has been established, however that atmospheric CO2 and global

> > temperature correspond in proportion to each other. During the past

> > 600,000 years there have been cyclic periods of warming and cooling

> > with atmospheric CO2 quantity leading the trend. The more CO2, the

> > warmer. Finally, we know that currently we have more than double the

> > CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 600,000 years as

> > determined by atmospheric bubbles in ice cores. In addition, most of

> > the hottest years on record have occurred within the last 10 years.

> >

> > How fast global warming will progress is not possible to

> > predict. There is insufficient data to know that. There are

> > contributions from solar output, from greenhouse gasses trapping

> > heat, from clouds reflecting the heat of the Sun, etc. All of this

> > is very poorly quantified and not well understood.

> >

> > We do know that glaciers all over the world are disappearing. We do

> > know that in the past 5 years, some of Greenland's glaciers have

> > literally tripled the speed at which they march toward the sea.

> >

> >

>

<<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?co\

ll=la-home-headlines>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25\

,0,1308610.story?coll=la-home-headlines

>

> >

>

<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1308610.story?col\

l=la-home-headlines>>Research

>

> >

> > by NASA Scientist Jay Zwally (review article in popular press)

> >

> >

>

<<http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus\

/viewArticle.do?id=9126

>

> > <http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126>>Oceanus

> >

>

<<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-c\

hange_rss20>http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId\

=climate-change_rss20

>

> >

>

<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18925383.500 & feedId=climate-ch\

ange_rss20>>New

>

> >

> > Scientist Space

> >

> > The consequences for humans will be disastrous if this trend

> > continues. Already mosquito borne disease has significantly risen to

> > much higher altitudes in mountains all around the world. Many other

> > mechanisms for human disease could easily be increased by the global

> > warming trend. Billions of people live at or near sea level and

> > countless cities and towns could face destruction by rising seas.

> >

> > Regardless of the cause, what are we going to do about it?

> >

> >

> >

> > At 07:42 AM 7/13/2006, you wrote:

> >

> > >So within your prediction, how do you propose that anyone will ever

> > >prove who caused what?

> > >

> > >No one in their right mind would ever propose that global warming and

> > >cooling does not happen.

> > >The problem will always be in objectively proving what caused the

> > >change. The advocates

> > >of human intervention will swear they are correct, no matter what

> > >happens and no one will be

> > >able to prove them wrong... just as your side will go on claiming that

> > >they are wrong. I think that

> > >you are probably correct, but if you are not, the future of human life

> > >on this planet stands at

> > >risk . On the other side of the coin, if we were not taking most other

> > >forms of life down with us,

> > >that may be a good thing.

> > >

> > >Dave Narby wrote:

> > >

> > > > Hey, I'll do you one better.

> > > >

> > > > Global warming is happening on ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE SOLAR

> > SYSTEM.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

<<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en\

& btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as\

_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>http://w\

ww.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Goog\

le+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_n\

hi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>><http://\

www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Goo\

gle+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_\

nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>http://www.google\

..com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search\

& as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_oc\

ct=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

>

> >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

<<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en\

& btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as\

_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>http://w\

ww.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Goog\

le+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_n\

hi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & \

btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_\

nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>

> > > >

> > > > I also hereby predict that man-made global warming will eventually be

> > > > revealed the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC DEBACLE IN HUMAN HISTORY.

> > > >

> > > > Apricot85 wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi Dave. Do you have a reference for Mars. I used the 'find'

> > > > function for

> > > > > work 'mars', but didn't get any hits.

> > > > >

> > > > > I beleive that much of science presented comes from a money

> > trail more

> > > > > than any

> > > > > pollitical agenda. In this case, do you really believe that ALL the

> > > > > scientists have

> > > > > a political agenda? Do you think that ALL of the top scientists are

> > > > > overlooking Mars?

> > > > > Recently I read an article where hundreds of scientists were

> > surveyed

> > > > > about the movie

> > > > > & it's accuracy. For the most part, they ALL believed the movie

> > to be

> > > > > extremely accurate.

> > > > >

> > > > > I saw the movie. I don't dislike Al Gore, but I wish he had left off

> > > > > some of

> > > > > self-promoting bs, & just stuck with the important subject matter. I

> > > > > thought the self -promotion

> > > > > was transparent clutter, excess, a distraction. If I look as

> > only the

> > > > > science presentation, it

> > > > > was a good movie because the message is vitally important. We

> > will see

> > > > > huge effects of GW in

> > > > > our life time. 50 yrs is not that far away.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dave Narby wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Just going through my backlog and spotted this one.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Did anybody else notice that completely ignored the fact

> > > > that Mars

> > > > > > is also experiencing global warming?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not that I think we should keep using fossil fuels, mind you - but

> > > > it's

> > > > > > pretty funny how the 'true believers' simply refuse to address

> > > > anything

> > > > > > that doesn't fit their zeitgeist.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yeah, right and greehouse gas is a notion of fairy godmothers.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Most of the so-called " science " that " refutes " global

> > warming from

> > > > > > > unprecedented human combustion and dumping of CO2 and other

> > > > > > > greenhouse gases is sponsored by those with a strong agenda

> > for the

> > > > > > > status quo like the infamous Cato institute, so loved by

> > Bush

> > > > > > > and the other oil barons (

> > > > > > >

> > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > > >

> > >

>

<<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > > >

> > >

>

<<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > > >

> > >

>

<<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>

> > > > > > >

> > >

>

<<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > > >

> > >

>

<<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>

> > > > > >

> > >

>

<<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>

> > > > >

> > >

>

<<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> >

>

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>><http://www.cato.org/pubs/re\

gulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>

> > >

> > > >

>

<<http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>http://www.cato.org/pubs/reg\

ulation/reg15n2g.html

>

> > <http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html>>>>> ). (By the way,

> > > > > > > even their aligned scientists have recently this year

> > switched their

> > > > > > > arguments to say that instead of that humans are not causing

> > global

> > > > > > > warming, that it is proceeding at a much slower rate than other

> > > > > > > scientists and models claim, citing isolated data and

> > geographical

> > > > > > > data from one area alone to substantiate how slowly it is

> > > > > proceeding...)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is the consensus of scientists everywhere that human

> > activity is

> > > > > > > largely behind global warming (and that any warming cycle of

> > the Sun

> > > > > > > is negligible).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> >

>

<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>><http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>h\

ttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > > >

> > >

> <<<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> >

>

<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>><http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>h\

ttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>

> > > > > >

> > >

> <<<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> >

>

<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>><http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>h\

ttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>

> > > > >

> > >

> <<<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> >

>

<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>><http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>h\

ttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

>

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>

> > > >

> <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

> > <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jim,

Chernobyl was about as bad as we are ever likely to see a nuclear power

plant accident, it need not have been as bad if the design had been

retired at it's proper end of life, the country was desperate for

energy, so pushed their luck too far. I think nuclear operators will be

too scared now to push their luck again. Modern design reactors,

especially some of the newest designs should remove the possibility of

catastrophic failures like a graphite fire (Chernobyl) or a melt down

(Three Mile Island), if used for new reactors, as will a health fear of

the consequence of negligence.

All I have seen so far strongly suggests that 'Zero point' energy is

junk science as are all these other Tesla and New Age inspired ideas

about that all kinds of strange/dark energy fields, not observed or

documented by genuine/objective scientists. Self-deception can affect

anyone, especially those inventors who have a distorted or incomplete

understanding of current science, or who have too much emotional

investment in their ideas.

As for nuclear material, I don't see any shortage of that, for a very

long time, there are many radioactive isotopes which can be used in

nuclear power sources, not just Uranium isotopes, even some high level

nuclear waste could be reused.

Jim wrote:

> Chernobyl never got close to what it could have been even though it killed

> most of people who worked on the amelioration according to the Discovery

> Documentary aired recently. They said that virtually all of the first

> crews died.

> So who is right? I know that I do not want to test it myself.

>

> Not only is Nuclear dangerous, the present form is not at all well

> conceived.

> There may be some application for nuclear that are quite excellent, but we

> have not yet found them. Nevertheless, it still requires a fuel

> source and

> we will eventually run out of Uranium.

>

> Tesla was correct when his said that using fuel to create energy is the

> wrong way to go about it. When you speak of density, you are speaking

> of fuel. Zero Point Energy has no density and it will never run out.

> It is a fact and Tesla was certainly onto it. Since the Government

> destroyed a

> lot of his work, we may never know how far he actually got with it,

> but his Pierce Arrow experiment was verified by quite a few reliable

> people. It is said

> that he drove the car for a week at speeds up to 90mph with not outside

> source

> of fuel... power density? Cold Fusion is a fact. I have seen it

> work. Black Light Power's

> work looks very good also. My opinion is that they are just another

> form of Zero

> Point Energy, but they are certainly real.

>

> New Energy solutions can probably all be turned into weapons...

> just as Nuclear can. They undoubtedly have been. That was what the

> Star Wars

> program was about.

>

> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8943205214784769158

>

>

>

> nospam.rwp@... wrote:

>

>

>> Jim,

>>

>> Nuclear works, Fusion is a long shot (IMHO JET is the wrong method), the

>> Tesla ideas may not work; if they do work, they may cause unexpected

>> catastrophic damage and be uneconomical to run i.e. where does all the

>> power come from (nuclear?) and what happens when you blast Giga-Watts of

>> power into the ground or atmosphere?

>>

>> Nuclear power plants have probably the highest power density of any

>> known usable power source, fossil fuel power plants are nowhere near as

>> dense and have much greater overall carbon costs *, and most

>> 'sustainable' power sources either have low power density (wind power),

>> cause environmental damage (sea power schemes) or have a net _negative_

>> power output after construction or transport cost (solar panels and

>> plant based fuels)!

>>

>> * I'm still not convinced that global warming works via a so called

>> carbon dioxide Green House effect, given how the atmosphere charges

>> with energy (or maybe tidal) energy from the Sun, maybe energy from the

>> Earth rock, and discharges energy to the earth surface, while allowing

>> other energy to escape into space. The key problem with this Green

>> House nonsense is that most of what keeps the surface of the earth warm

>> does not come from sunlight striking the surface of the earth!

>>

>> A recent Horizon TV program on BBC 2 (UK), detailed how scientists have

>> looked at not just the humans evacuated from around Chernobyl, but also

>> the wildlife which stayed in the hottest radiation area near the

>> reactor; the wildlife is thriving, despite being radioactive and the

>> expected human effects were _much_ smaller than expected. Air plane

>> crews were also looked at, where radiation exposure was an order of

>> magnitude higher than 'normal' background radiation, but who suffered no

>> ill effects from it. Scientists even looked at a part of Iran where the

>> natural background radiation is shockingly high, yet it had no ill

>> effects on the inhabitants. The reason for this surprising lack of ill

>> effects was because natural anti-radiation genes were observed to become

>> became activate in both humans and the wildlife, in higher radiation

>> areas, so protecting them. Even more surprising is that people living

>> in higher background radiation areas of the USA have lower rates of

>> cancer, thus some radiation seems to be beneficial. The scientist who

>> studied this issue said that these findings cast serious doubt on the

>> validity of the standard radiation exposure model.

>>

>> Most nuclear power stations are required to put out less radiation than

>> an aircraft flight, yet daily coal power stations spew out more

>> radioactivity, from the natural radioactive elements in coal, this would

>> suggest nuclear is not as bad as appears!

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>> What we need to do now is cut the FUD *, improve power transmission

>> efficiencies and have enough nuclear reactors to at worst buy us time to

>> develop powerful enough alternatives power sources (it could take

>> several decades), or possibly consider nuclear a long term power source,

>> given there is so much radioactive material that there are even natural

>> water enabled nuclear reactors, in at least one rock formation! There

>> are even some newer nuclear reactor types being developed which use

>> similar fail safe principles e.g in Japan and China. Nature already

>> safely handles nuclear waste and nobody complains, so why can't we learn

>> from this?

>>

>> * It is deceit to think that we can reduce electrical power consumption

>> much, given that consumer and industry power consumption is likely to

>> rise as technology progresses e.g. larger screen TVs, faster computers,

>> robotics and other utility machinery etc.

>>

>>

>>

>> Jim wrote:

>>

>>> :

>>> Do you really think that the human population could reverse its course

>>> at this late date even if everyone agreed that global warming is caused

>>> by humans? I don't. If we could somehow neutralize current scientific

>>> dogma and get research off of Hot Fusion (generic example) and turn

>>> attention to the science of Tesla, there may be a glimmer of hope,

>>> but I don't see it as a possibility.

>>>

>>> On the other front, I am totally amazed that many otherwise rational

>>> people

>>> see old technology nuclear fission and breeder reactors as Green. We

>>> could end our concerns very quickly with a Chernobyl or TMI with only a

>>> very slightly different outcome. The USSR almost did in Europe and TMI

>>> came very close to zapping the northeast for an indefinite period of

>>>

>> time.

>>

>>> This as we store spent fuel rods at every nuke plant in the world.

>>>

>>> Jim

>>>

>>> Brown wrote:

>>>

>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jim,

Out of curiosity, I watched the quite long video, it looks like

something maybe happening, however I heard a lot of New Age language and

some dubious arguments, which is never a good sign. I think I would

need to physically see, properly examine and try out at least one so

called 'over unity' system, and compare it with an equivalent standard

system, before I will have any confidence in the idea of so called free,

open-loop, energy.

> Jim wrote:

>

>> Chernobyl never got close to what it could have been even though it killed

>> most of people who worked on the amelioration according to the Discovery

>> Documentary aired recently. They said that virtually all of the first

>> crews died.

>> So who is right? I know that I do not want to test it myself.

>>

>> Not only is Nuclear dangerous, the present form is not at all well

>> conceived.

>> There may be some application for nuclear that are quite excellent, but we

>> have not yet found them. Nevertheless, it still requires a fuel

>> source and

>> we will eventually run out of Uranium.

>>

>> Tesla was correct when his said that using fuel to create energy is the

>> wrong way to go about it. When you speak of density, you are speaking

>> of fuel. Zero Point Energy has no density and it will never run out.

>> It is a fact and Tesla was certainly onto it. Since the Government

>> destroyed a

>> lot of his work, we may never know how far he actually got with it,

>> but his Pierce Arrow experiment was verified by quite a few reliable

>> people. It is said

>> that he drove the car for a week at speeds up to 90mph with not outside

>> source

>> of fuel... power density? Cold Fusion is a fact. I have seen it

>> work. Black Light Power's

>> work looks very good also. My opinion is that they are just another

>> form of Zero

>> Point Energy, but they are certainly real.

>>

>> New Energy solutions can probably all be turned into weapons...

>> just as Nuclear can. They undoubtedly have been. That was what the

>> Star Wars

>> program was about.

>>

>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8943205214784769158

>>

>>

>>

>> nospam.rwp@... wrote:

>>

>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

:

There may be hope for you yet. :-)

Now watch the six video's on the page that I sent . Realize that

nothing in these videos is accepted by mainstream science, but that

does not

make it wrong. It only takes it out of consideration and discussion for

over

99% of the people working in the field. I was an avid reader of

Infinite Energy

Magazine before Dr. Eugene Malove was murdered. He was the standard

bearer of unencumbered science... something very rare in today's bought

and paid for research where anomalous outcomes are dismissed as mistakes

and never pursued.

After you watch those videos, watch these guys do their thing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549 & q=tesla

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549 & q=tesla>

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294 & q=tesla

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294 & q=tesla>

Cheers, Jim

nospam.rwp@... wrote:

> Jim,

>

> Out of curiosity, I watched the quite long video, it looks like

> something maybe happening, however I heard a lot of New Age language and

> some dubious arguments, which is never a good sign. I think I would

> need to physically see, properly examine and try out at least one so

> called 'over unity' system, and compare it with an equivalent standard

> system, before I will have any confidence in the idea of so called free,

> open-loop, energy.

>

>

>

> > Jim wrote:

> >

> >> Chernobyl never got close to what it could have been even though it

> killed

> >> most of people who worked on the amelioration according to the

> Discovery

> >> Documentary aired recently. They said that virtually all of the first

> >> crews died.

> >> So who is right? I know that I do not want to test it myself.

> >>

> >> Not only is Nuclear dangerous, the present form is not at all well

> >> conceived.

> >> There may be some application for nuclear that are quite excellent,

> but we

> >> have not yet found them. Nevertheless, it still requires a fuel

> >> source and

> >> we will eventually run out of Uranium.

> >>

> >> Tesla was correct when his said that using fuel to create energy is the

> >> wrong way to go about it. When you speak of density, you are speaking

> >> of fuel. Zero Point Energy has no density and it will never run out.

> >> It is a fact and Tesla was certainly onto it. Since the Government

> >> destroyed a

> >> lot of his work, we may never know how far he actually got with it,

> >> but his Pierce Arrow experiment was verified by quite a few reliable

> >> people. It is said

> >> that he drove the car for a week at speeds up to 90mph with not

> outside

> >> source

> >> of fuel... power density? Cold Fusion is a fact. I have seen it

> >> work. Black Light Power's

> >> work looks very good also. My opinion is that they are just another

> >> form of Zero

> >> Point Energy, but they are certainly real.

> >>

> >> New Energy solutions can probably all be turned into weapons...

> >> just as Nuclear can. They undoubtedly have been. That was what the

> >> Star Wars

> >> program was about.

> >>

> >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8943205214784769158

> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8943205214784769158>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> nospam.rwp@... <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> >>

> >>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Take the blinders off!!! If the link below doesn't work, do a freakin'

Google search on 'global warming on other planets'!

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=global+warming+on+other+planets & num=30 & hl=en & b\

tnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_n\

lo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

a1thighmaster wrote:

>

> Except that not all the planets in the solar system are also warming.

> No documentation exists to show that trend.

>

> Best regards,

> Celeste

>

> Dave Narby wrote:

> > ...How do you explain the fact that all the planets in the solar system

> > are also warming?

>

>

--

This is your brain on politics:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...