Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 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/> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 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 >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 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 >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 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/>> > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 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/>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 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/>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 ....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/>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 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/>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 : 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/>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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/>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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.. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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/>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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: >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 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: >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 : 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: > >> > >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.