>>
>>
>> But if any of you want a copy of my 14 page paper "Beamed Energy and
>> the Economics of Space Based Solar Power" and the spread sheets that
>> were used to construct the models, let me know.
>>
>> Please don't ask if you are not willing to read the paper (or at least try).
>
> As expe
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro
> wrote:
>
>> Keith Henson wrote:
>>>
>>> I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know
>>> if there is anyone on this list who can follow the phys
On 20/02/2010, at 3:23 AM, Michael Harney wrote:
>
> Seriously? You put this much weight in a non-academic, purely speculative
> and, by my reasoning bullshit article. For crying out loud, the only cite in
> the whole article is from wikipedia.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP/WEAP.html
Cont
On 19/02/2010, at 3:16 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Charlie Bell
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>
> snip
>
You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural
mathematician), but my chemistry is fine.
How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in the US and
Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't preaching a "need to
suffer".
What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with "business as usual" then
a lot of people will suffer.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>
> On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
snip
>>> You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural
>>> mathematician), but my chemistry is fine...
>>
>> The US uses about 20 million bbs of oil per day. How much e
On 19/02/2010, at 9:17 AM, Trent Shipley wrote:
>
>>
> For a little while longer I work for the local electric utility. We had a
> newsletter item that the Australian "leadership" had ruled out nuclear as an
> option and instead was making a bet on carbon sequestration from coal plants
> ...
Hey Trent.
I hear what your saying. If you use all the energy you gained by burning
carbon locking it back up again it is all a bit pointless isn't it. The
article assumes an exponential increase in the use of solar energy over the
next 20 years, which basically solves our biggest problem (cheap
On Feb 18, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
Keith Henson wrote:
If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people
will
*die* in famines and resource wars.
Where will they live?
(I am a member of a tribe. Global civilization can go stuff itself.)
I assume that you me
Charlie Bell wrote:
> On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Charlie Bell
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are smal
Keith Henson wrote:
> If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will
> *die* in famines and resource wars.
>
> Keith
>
> ___
> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
>
>
Where will they live?
(I am a m
Wayne Eddy wrote:
> Found what I thought was a terrific paper on carbon sequestration.
>
> It suggests that it should be possible to use nanotechnology to
> convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into diamond bricks by the 2030's.
>
> http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep043.pdf
>
>
> ---
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro
wrote:
> Keith Henson wrote:
>>
>> I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know
>> if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry
>> and math.
>>
> Probably not, we are very stupid
ay. How much electric
> power would it take to make that much synthetic oil.
What do you want synthetic oil for, except as plastic feedstock? Please explain
what you're trying to do with that much sythetic oil, other than attempt to
keep running the same kinds of ICE powered vehicles that w
uld appreciate someone else doing it to
check my numbers.)
>> I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is
>> preached by the global warming community.
>
> Um, exactly what is this "global warming community" that preaches a "need to
> suff
Found what I thought was a terrific paper on carbon sequestration.
It suggests that it should be possible to use nanotechnology to convert
atmospheric carbon dioxide into diamond bricks by the 2030's.
http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep043.pdf
___
http://box
Alberto wrote:
>>
> Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math
> used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy.
>
> Alberto Monteiro
Or very sarcastic.
Doug
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On 17 Feb 2010, at 23:21, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
> Keith Henson wrote:
>>
>> I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know
>> if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry
>> and math.
>>
> Probably not, we are very stupid when i
Keith Henson wrote:
>
> I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know
> if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry
> and math.
>
Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math
used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy.
Alberto
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>> I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is
>> preached by the global warming community.
>
> Um, exactly what is this "global warmi
t a natural mathematician),
but my chemistry is fine...
>
> I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is
> preached by the global warming community.
Um, exactly what is this "global warming community" that preaches a "need to
suffer"? That loo
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Trent Shipley wrote:
snip
> If you want to solve global warming it better not cost me my job,
> increase my electricity bill, make me pay more for transportation,
> sacrifice the quality or quantity of my transportation, or otherwise
> degrade
Very few people that I know are skeptical that human activity is causing
more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere or that this is contributing to
a rise in global temperatures. I do think that a lot of people are
legitimately skeptical that it is the existential threat that some people
make it
As you said.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm
Uranium mining (reserves?) in tonnes
Australia 725,000 t
Brazil 157,400 t
Canada 329,200 t
* Kazakhstan 378,100 t
South Africa 284,400 t
Namibia 176,400 t
* Niger
Trent said:
> The problem with nuclear power is that we can't get all the uranium we
> need from reliable countries. A lot of it comes from Russia, the
> Central Asian Republics, and less stable African states.
Aren't the worlds most productive uranium mines in Canada and Australia? Those
two c
Michael Harney wrote:
> Trent wrote:
>
> Why not nuclear power? Less people have died in nuclear accidents
> than mining coal. Mining coal is more hazardous to your health than
> working in a modern nuclear power plant. It doesn't produce CO2. It
> doesn't produce environmental pollution other
half kidding, but I partly feel this way. More importantly, I think
it reflects political reality. Polls are showing people are less
concerned about global warming and more skeptical. It really comes home
when you ask if you can raise electricity rates to prevent global
warming. Polls come up wit
Nick Arnett wrote:
>http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise
Ironically, Dr. Brin seems to know very little about the Know Nothing Party.
They were anti-immigration, jingoistic Protestants, not anti-intellectuals.
Just sayin'
Trent wrote:
"I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must
preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet."
You're kidding right? If we go down we're taking the world with us? A
little Bond-villain-esqe don't you think? Can't compromises be
reached?
FYI, unless the word "Brin" in the subject is followed by a colon, he won't
see it... so it's not really necessary to replace the "i" like that.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
> I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must
> preserve the American
I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must
preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet.
So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the
cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs
of climate change be
http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
In a Fortune interview, noted climatologist John Christy contends the
green crusade to fight climate change is "all cost and no benefit."
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- With Congress about to take up sweeping
climate-change legislation, expect to hear more in coming weeks from
John Christy, director of
On 28/09/2008, at 12:11 AM, Dan M wrote:
>> Would this be algae that process carbon into sugar enantiomers that
>> then couldn't be broken down organically?
>
>
> So, from what I know, the answer to your question would be no; it's
> algae
> that uses water, photosynthesis and carbon dioxide to
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:05 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Global Warming and new numbers
>
>
> On 27/09/200
On 27/09/2008, at 11:34 AM, Dan M wrote:
>
> There are some radical new ideas (like right handed algae)
?
Would this be algae that process carbon into sugar enantiomers that
then couldn't be broken down organically?
Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.
On 27/09/2008, at 10:23 AM, Dan M wrote:
>
> China is doing nothing that the UK, Australia, the US, etc. didn't
> do on the
> way up the economic ladder. So, I didn't mean to assess blame, just
> point
> out that global warming is becoming an issue that is outs
I've thought a bit, and I think I might have given another wrong impression.
It's not that I don't think it's important for the US to cut its greenhouse
gas emissions, not just its per capita emissions (as it has over the last
decade). I've been on record here favoring an artificial raising of the
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 6:59 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Global Warming and new numbers
>
>
> On 27/09/20
On 27/09/2008, at 3:02 AM, Dan M wrote:
> 2007 numbers have just come out, and they confirm a disturbing
> trend. China
> in 2007 emitted 2 billion tons of carbon, compared to the US's 1.75
> billion
> in second place. The US actually went up 2%, so China had to go up
> about
> 10% to get
2007 numbers have just come out, and they confirm a disturbing trend. China
in 2007 emitted 2 billion tons of carbon, compared to the US's 1.75 billion
in second place. The US actually went up 2%, so China had to go up about
10% to get that far in the lead.
The US will drop this year, with the r
On May 6, 2008, at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 5, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
>>>
>>> IAAMOAC is his original motto, at least seven years old (see
>>> http://www.davidbrin.com/parting.html but I think I remember him
>>> using
>>> it before that).
>>
Ray wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
> >
> > IAAMOAC is his original motto, at least seven years old (see
> > http://www.davidbrin.com/parting.html but I think I remember him using
> > it before that).
>
> He certainly did use it earlier than that. The earliest messag
On May 5, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
>
> IAAMOAC is his original motto, at least seven years old (see
> http://www.davidbrin.com/parting.html but I think I remember him using
> it before that).
He certainly did use it earlier than that. The earliest message I have
archived using
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
> > PS: "I am a member of a Civilization" - Brin's motto
> I thought his motto was CITOKATE?
>
>
> Regards,
>
IAAMOAC is his original motto, at least seven years old (see
http:
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
> Kevin B. O'Brien blasphemed:
>
>>> Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing
>>> other people under the wheels in order to save themselves?
>>>
>> I don't recognize the acronym you used,
>>
>>
> WHAT??? You herectic scum
Kevin B. O'Brien blasphemed:
>
>> Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing
>> other people under the wheels in order to save themselves?
>
> I don't recognize the acronym you used,
>
WHAT??? You herectic scum!
Alberto Monteiro
PS: "I am a member of a
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> At 08:29 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:
>
>> I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if
>> necessary. If we are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the
>> case), the balance will be restored through the 4 Horsemen of the
>> A
I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if necessary. If we
are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the case), the balance will be
restored through the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, in some kind of combination.
Whether Ronn will find that
less offensive I cannot say.
At 08:29 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:
>
>I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if
>necessary. If we are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the
>case), the balance will be restored through the 4 Horsemen of the
>Apocalypse, in some kind of combination
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42 PM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white,
>> American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the
>> planet by composting themselves .
Russell Chapman wrote:
>
>> The deforestation in Brazil has _zero_ correlation with AGW
>> prevention, biofuels, or anything like that. It's just the
>> continuous push of civilization against forests, the same
>> event that devastated European forests 500 years ago and
>> USA forests 200 years ag
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Russell Chapman wrote:
>
>> The same source puts Brazil at 5th in the world for the
>> same reason - ironically due to US AGW prevention measures
>>
>>
> The deforestation in Brazil has _zero_ correlation with AGW
> prevention, biofuels, or anything like that. It's
Russell Chapman wrote:
>
> The same source puts Brazil at 5th in the world for the
> same reason - ironically due to US AGW prevention measures
>
The deforestation in Brazil has _zero_ correlation with AGW
prevention, biofuels, or anything like that. It's just the
continuous push of civilization a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> China has the coal reserves to keep up this rate of increase, and it's at
> the heart of their ecconomic expansion. At this rate, by 2015, they'll
> have about twice the output of Europe and the US combined. That's why
> getting the cost of green technology down is crit
...as the price of oil continues to rise the world economy will be in
upheaval, with increasing disease, famine, wars, political and social
chaos. the die off is inevitable among most species, including
humanity and other species will oscillate. most of the genocide and
ethnic cleansing will occu
Charlie Bell wrote:
... the more developed a country, the smaller the family size. So, get
all the world developed, and the human population should drop below
replacement rate...
... Brazil is close to replacement rate, not because the g*vernment did
anything or because a large part of the popula
i care more about the extinction of plant and animal species than
humanity.
i really don't think taking my own life will help matters...
jon
But in either case the result for you is the same.
I'm simply trying to get across in this discussion how offensive I find
it when anyone suggests that the
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42 PM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white,
> American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the
> planet by composting themselves . . . ;)
> . . . ronn! :)
Just for the record, I'
In order to give some of the data behind my understanding, I'd like to
compare the partial numbers from 2006 with 2000 for selected countries. I
have numbers for the US and China, and will assume the EU and Japan
increased their greenhouse gasses at approximately the same rate as
2000-2005 between
jon louis mann wrote:
> what I find offensive is the implication I often get from members of
> the environmental movement that accomplishing their goals requires some
> sort of eugenics, with statements like some of them have made like "the
> carrying capacity of the Earth with people practicing a
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> At 09:29 PM Monday 4/28/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
>
>> Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement requires
>> some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication offensive.
>>
>
>
> And what I find offensive is the implication I of
Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> It's an observation that the more developed a country,
> the smaller the family size. So, get all the world
> developed, and the human population should drop below
> replacement rate and contract. Maybe some nations
> will have one child per adult legislation, but most
>
On 29/04/2008, at 12:55 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> At 09:29 PM Monday 4/28/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
>> Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement
>> requires
>> some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication
>> offensive.
>
>
> And what I find offensi
what I find offensive is the implication I often get from members of
the environmental movement that accomplishing their goals requires some
sort of eugenics, with statements like some of them have made like "the
carrying capacity of the Earth with people practicing a
sustainable lifestyle is at m
Original Message:
-
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:29:54 -0800
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Adressing Global Warming
>It's true that if the Chinese continue to adopt modern technology without
>heeding environmental co
At 09:29 PM Monday 4/28/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement requires
>some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication offensive.
And what I find offensive is the implication I often get from members
of the environmental moveme
John Garcia wrote:
>
> I suspect that people who are caught up in the daily struggle of
> survival,
> getting shelter, water, some grains to eat aren't placing the same weight
> on
> environmental issues as we in the affluent countries are.
Shelter, water and food _are_ environmental issues are
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
>
> >
> > Seems to me, he is just pointing out the irony in the fact that the
> Green
> > Movement is a product of affluence which is a product of technology.
> And
> > more specifically that the Green movem
Wayne wrote:
>
> Seems to me, he is just pointing out the irony in the fact that the Green
> Movement is a product of affluence which is a product of technology. And
> more specifically that the Green movement is antipathetic to the
> technology
> that has given them the time and resources to be
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: Adressing Global Warming
> Ronn! wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The point, h
Ronn! wrote:
>
>
> The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white,
> American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the
> planet by composting themselves . . . ;)
>
The message I'm getting is that you think environmentalists are inherently
racist, but that seems
Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should
be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area
and it means packing families in huge buildings.
Alberto Monteiro
i like the arcology model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcosanti
jon mann
_
The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white,
American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the
planet by composting themselves . . . ;)
. . . ronn! :)
poor dark skinned people pollute less, but there are more of them, and
rich white people don't want others sh
! :)
I pay no attention to anyone who talks about Global Warming
without mentioning Abbot Charles Greeley
431 titles via Addall.com/used
Then search again with "sunspot" or "solar variation" for the title.
Zero.
It's a Men In Black conspiracy, I tell ya.
So what
On 28/04/2008, at 1:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
> Charlie Bell wrote:
>>
>>> Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power
>>> should
>>> be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible
>>> area,
>>> and it means packing families in huge buil
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Yeah, bwana, an whail we remane poor and unpoluising, we coze
>> no poblema to the envrinoment.
>
> Just to be clear: you speak (or at least write) English well.
>
That's natural: English is almost a second language,
professionally it sometimes becomes the first la
At 07:39 PM Sunday 4/27/2008, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
>Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> >
> > Which brings us righ back to the dirty little secret of the
> > environmental movement: that the real underlying problem is that
> > there are by about an order of magnitude just too darn many p
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
>
> Which brings us righ back to the dirty little secret of the
> environmental movement: that the real underlying problem is that
> there are by about an order of magnitude just too darn many people
> already, particularly darker-complected ones with no money who don't
>
At 10:48 AM Sunday 4/27/2008, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
>Charlie Bell wrote:
> >
> >> Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should
> >> be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area,
> >> and it means packing families in huge buildings.
Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>> Seriously, if we want to save the planet, domestic solar power should
>> be banned! People should live and work in the smallest possible area,
>> and it means packing families in huge buildings.
>
> Solar hot water, not solar electric. Black pipes in a glass cabinet on
> th
On 28/04/2008, at 12:36 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
> Charlie Bell wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. The point of solar hot water is it's so cheap, and pays for
>> itself very quickly (3 - 5 years) if it's installed in a new house.
>> So
>> while it'll never amount to a huge percentage, it's st
Great idea! I'm looking forward to meeting your extended family in your new
tenement apartment. Especially the little kids.
http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: Adressing Global Warming
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 20
Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> Yeah. The point of solar hot water is it's so cheap, and pays for
> itself very quickly (3 - 5 years) if it's installed in a new house. So
> while it'll never amount to a huge percentage, it's still an
> inexpensive way of saving a significant amount of energy. So, like
> ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote lots of interesting stuff which raised a
couple of quick questions for me:
1. Why the time limit on nuclear energy? Even if every capable nation
ramped up plant construction enormously (and I hope they do), there is
enough uranium in Australia alone to supply their react
On 27/04/2008, at 9:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As promised, I looked into at what I think is the most expeditious
> plan to
> handle global warming.
Actually, I was asking if you could look at the weaknesses of the
powersat idea and offer possible solutions - it's ofte
the most expeditious plan to
>handle global warming. As is my wont, I will preface my recommendations
>with a bit of analysis that will serve as a foundation for my later work.
>
>[snip]
>
>OK, having said that, lets go to green technologies. The first and most
>obvious one is nucle
As promised, I looked into at what I think is the most expeditious plan to
handle global warming. As is my wont, I will preface my recommendations
with a bit of analysis that will serve as a foundation for my later work.
1) Global warming is real and that contribution of human activity to
t really accurate, is it? Depending on how we _define_
Global Warming, we may come up with two definitions of GW, and
one might be true and the other false.
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
NOT going to go
> into
> the entire flamewar about why. (Hint: PR flacks, not scientists)"
>
> Your words.
>
> So why is realclimate.org now worth checking? What's changed?
I don't like their take on origional research, I think they filter it
quite badly. But f
On 14/08/2007, at 8:55 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2007 at 8:54, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
>> Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/
>>> revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html
>
> As usual... check Realclimate first?
>
> http://www.re
On 8/13/2007 5:55:40 PM, Andrew Crystall ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2007 at 8:54, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> > Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://www.americanthinker.
> com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html
>
> As usual... check Realclimate first?
On 13 Aug 2007 at 8:54, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html
As usual... check Realclimate first?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-
that/
Andrew
e common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish
> to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an
> adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in
> year
> 2000.)"
> But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent y
- Original Message -
From: "BambiGal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: NASA Chief Questions Whether Global Warming Is a Problem
>
> On 6/1/2007 7:30:44 AM, Ronn! Blankenship
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> NASA in
On 1 Jun 2007, at 13:30, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> NASA initiated damage control Thursday as it tried to clarify remarks
> made earlier in the day by the space agency's administrator, who told
> a national radio audience that he doubted whether global warming was
> really a p
NASA initiated damage control Thursday as it tried to clarify remarks
made earlier in the day by the space agency's administrator, who told
a national radio audience that he doubted whether global warming was
really a problem.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276722,00.html>
At 01:27 AM Tuesday 5/22/2007, jon louis mann wrote:
>Didn't Bush come out several months ago and finally admit that Global
>Warming may be man-caused? ISTR a statement like that...
>Damon.
>
>sort of...
>http://www.greenopti
Didn't Bush come out several months ago and finally admit that Global
Warming may be man-caused? ISTR a statement like that...
Damon.
sort of...
http://www.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/05/15/bush_wants_action_on_global_warming_emissions_sort_of
bush treats science, education, war, even na
At 09:07 PM Friday 9/29/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> My question is whether a cut of 60% or 94% or whatever figure you
> found and cited as necessary to stop or reverse the environmental
> damage, or a cut even a fraction as large, a cut large enough to see
> _any_ gains wrt glo
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
