Re: Global warming silliness

Hi John, I would like to point out that I did not write the first two sentences you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one. As I said, I'm agnostic on human caused global warming. Unusually, I mostly agree with everything you say here. A few comments below... >> > the fossil fu

Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two sentences > you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one. Sorry. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group

Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two sentences >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one. > > > Sorry. No worries. Telmo. > J

Re: Global warming silliness

Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of 13,95

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 7:51 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to convince anyone that global warming isn't happening, There is no doubt that the climate is changing but that is no

Re: Global warming silliness

Dear LIZ: More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories beween 1599 and 2010. We call that 'religon'. (Numbers!!!) Does that make them true? Fossil fuel will not neccesarily run out: nobody will use them after our demise. And for nukes? I would say: O N L Y fusion! The '

Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR wrote: > Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long > time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of > decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the > connection, of course, but

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 10:49 AM, LizR wrote: Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the connection, of course, but the circumsta

Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution > because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the > amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of > anthropogenic globa

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 10:19, John Mikes wrote: > Dear LIZ: > More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories > beween 1599 and 2010. We call that 'religon'. (Numbers!!!) Does that make > them true? > They weren't using the scientific method. Do you think science works, or d

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 10:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: > There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution > because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the > amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of > anthropogenic global warming does n

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories beween 1599 and 2010. But did they provide any data? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe fro

RE: Global warming silliness

http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:18 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 11/13/2013 10:49 AM, LizR wrote: Obviously there is more CO2 in

Re: Global warming silliness

68594 -- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: More than ~2 million

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella wrote: > But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and > then switch. It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar > panels and wind tubines. In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but > not on the time sc

RE: Global warming silliness

-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:33 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems > both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of > certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of > the > geo-engineer

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella > wrote: But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and then switch. It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels and wind tubi

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella wrote: And to have

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 16:47, meekerdb wrote: > On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella wrote: > >> But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out >> and then switch. It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar >> panel

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > > *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM > > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re:

Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution >> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the >> amount of papers that say

Re: Global warming silliness

: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800 > From: meeke...@verizon.net > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Global warming silliness > > On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories > beween 1599

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 Nov 2013, at 04:47, meekerdb wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella wrote: But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and then switch. It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels and wind

Re: Global warming silliness

Yes. I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because that is a waste of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something: Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters looki

Re: Global warming silliness

Retrodiction, instead of prediction, in this case. 2013/11/14 Alberto G. Corona > Yes. > > I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because > that is a waste of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by > the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will

Re: Global warming silliness

Hi Alberto, On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > Yes. > > I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because > that is a waste of time, Mentioning apocalyptic narratives is an important point. These are a fairly common social phenomena across History

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 3:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, meekerdb wrote: Good one, Chris. But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear of government. In the U.S. since the Viet Nam war there has developed a widespread distrust of government as

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo-religion abuse. ?? Does not parse. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

RE: Global warming silliness

-0800 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo-religion abuse. ?? D

Re: Global warming silliness

brainy people who had spent time thinking about it, it > would have been irrational to act in contradiction to it. > > -- > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:48:37 -0800 > From: meeke...@verizon.net > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Gl

Re: Global warming silliness

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a > > tremendous cost after all. > > I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How c

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Yes. I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because that is a waste of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something: Alas, some people just c

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:26 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella wrote: From

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:35 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 14 Nov 2013, at 04:47, meekerdb wrote: On 11/13/2013

Re: Global warming silliness

Hi Chris I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss anything. The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course very hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:20 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness Hi Chris Hi Liz I won't interleave my replies as I'

Re: Global warming silliness

ything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:20 PM > > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: Global warming silliness > > > > Hi Chris > > > > > > Hi Liz > > > > I won't interleave

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/14/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote: Hi Chris I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss anything. The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course very hypothetical a

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:08 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness >>I would like to see us switch away from fossil fuels complete

Re: Global warming silliness

On 14 Nov 2013, at 18:48, meekerdb wrote: On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo-religion abuse. ?? Does not parse. Sorry. Read instead: "The use of science by governments is of the type of pseudo-religion abuse.

Re: Global warming silliness

> > There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because it >> behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I >> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is >> why it is a good model. >> > > Just like climate models parameter

Re: Global warming silliness

So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't yet 100% accurate? So let's sit on our hands and do nothing, just in case we make a better world o

Re: Global warming silliness

2013/11/15 LizR > So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable > effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial > revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't yet 100% accurate? > > The models are 0% accurate. The other aspects that y

Re: Global warming silliness

Hi Russell, On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish >> wrote: >> >> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a >> > tremendous cost a

Re: Global warming silliness

only takes us so far. Think terawatts, not negawatts, and what tech we are going to use to replace the dirty? Faster please. -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 7:23 pm Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G

Re: Global warming silliness

- From: Chris de Morsella To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 9:05 pm Subject: RE: Global warming silliness From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:26 AM To: everything-list

Re: Global warming silliness

The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes. They also *have stopped further solar cell research* in the countries where these subs

Re: Global warming silliness

I mean, the subsidies are for solar energy production. 2013/11/15 Alberto G. Corona > The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even > Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the > familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/15/2013 2:11 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because it behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why

Re: Global warming silliness

I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand it: The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every 14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus. What fact of the earth climate the climate models are capable to predict? 2013/11/15 mee

Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: > And for nukes? I would say: O N L Y fusion! > The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil > pollution. > Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao h

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the familiar and industrial economy with such incredible amount of taxes. "Germany's Industrial Economy Dest

Re: Global warming silliness

Germany was forced to reduce the subsidies retroactively, that means breaking the contracts with already installed power plants. Like spain and other countries. Even, so the taxes over electricity consumption would provoke a revolution in USA. 2013/11/15 meekerdb > On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alber

Re: Global warming silliness

Solar irradiance on the Earth is approximately 1.74×1017 Watts. On 16 November 2013 02:13, wrote: > To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving the IPCC supporters the > benefit of the doubt, we must have abundant clean sources at the ready. We > need terawatts of clean, because gigawatts a

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 07:18, meekerdb wrote: > There's nothing apocalyptic about global warming. Human will survive as a > species. At least so long as it doesn't trigger a nuclear war. But there > will be a lot death and suffering. > I agree. The question is whether our civilisation will survi

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 07:34, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand > it: > > The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every > 14000 years, just what happens in the real Eart nucleus. > > What fact of the earth c

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 08:20, meekerdb wrote: > On 11/15/2013 5:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That not even > Germany will have enough budget to pay them) not only have destroyed the > familiar and industrial economy with such incredible

Re: Global warming silliness

LizR 3:23 PM (29 minutes ago) to everything-list On 16 November 2013 07:34, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I rephrase my affirmation as a question, so that even a kid can understand > it: > > The models of the earth nucleus predict an inversion of polatity every > 14000 years, just what happens in th

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes > wrote: > And for nukes? I would say: O N L Y fusion! The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil pollution. Lets look at the disasters asso

Re: Global warming silliness

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: > in the past, when the earth was much warmer, sea level was several meters > higher. > The sea was hundreds of meters higher in the past and will be so again someday, but at a rate of one inch a decade we'll have plenty of time to adapt. > As yo

Re: Global warming silliness

[image: Inline images 1] On 16 November 2013 09:54, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Liz, Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was > rising. Can you explain that? Richard > > Why should I? This is a complex system with an uncontrolled experiment running in it. Since I was

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 10:07, John Clark wrote: > > Straw man my ass, environmentalists never met a energy source they didn't > hate. Wind farms are ugly, disrupt wind patterns are noisy and kill > birdies. Geothermal smells bad and causes earthquakes. Hydroelectric floods > the land and new dams ma

Re: Global warming silliness

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:18:17AM +1300, LizR wrote: > [image: Inline images 1] > > > On 16 November 2013 09:54, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > > Liz, Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was > > rising. Can you explain that? Richard > > > PS on the subject of the p

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 10:48, Russell Standish wrote: > This is due to the presence of aerosols. Ironically, cleaning up our > pollution has caused the planet to warm faster. > > Yes I thought it would be something like that. I recently heard there had been a (slight) drop in global temperatures cau

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 10:44, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > That is not a predicion that test the validity of a model. I can do the > same with a program with then lines by adjusting three parameters. > > A real model would reproduce the evolution of ancient climates > transitions, for example the in

Re: Global warming silliness

My own models and the one of star trekkers, Star warriors and in general Sci-Fi aficionados indicates that the most probable catastrophe is an alien invasion in the next 100 years. We have only one planet to live. So I will consider you a bunch of retarded deniers and brainless morons if you do

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 11:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > My own models and the one of star trekkers, Star warriors and in general > Sci-Fi aficionados indicates that the most probable catastrophe is an > alien invasion in the next 100 years. > > We have only one planet to live. So I will consider y

Re: Global warming silliness

As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists. Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times. It is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor. You are a true danger. 2013/11/15 LizR > On 16 November 2013 11:13, Alberto G. Corona w

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/15/2013 2:38 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists. Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times. It is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor. You are a true danger. Alberto is just

Re: Global warming silliness

You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to say. You are your worst enemy. I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but the business of some people here that live from big gobernment politics and ecoalarmist demagogy. 2013/11/15 meekerdb > On 11/15/20

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 11:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > As i said before, it si worthless to talk with sectarian apocalipticists. > Your ideological ancestors were the worst people of the modern times. It > is no surprise that you lack the tiniest sense of humor. You are a true > danger. > > I r

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 11:57, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to > say. You are your worst enemy. > > I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but the business of > some people here that live from big gobernment politics

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/15/2013 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 November 2013 11:57, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: You have shown what you are and what you represent. I have nothing more to say. You are your worst enemy. I suspect that we have touched not only the beliefs, but th

Re: Global warming silliness

On 16 November 2013 12:35, meekerdb wrote: > On 11/15/2013 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: > > So far, my climate denier models are spot on. > > How many times does you model predict Alberto will post that he's not > going to say anymore? Just curious. > > :-) -- You received this message because you a

RE: Global warming silliness

AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Global warming silliness 2013/11/15 LizR So the measurements showing rising global temperatures and the noticeable effects this is having, and the measured rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution are irrelevant because the models aren't ye

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness >>To perform a fix on the climate, and I am giving th

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:30 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Global warming silliness >>The fantastic amount of subsidies to the solar energy (That no

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:33 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Global warming silliness >> I mean, the subsidies are for solar energy production. Refe

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:07 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: >

Re: Global warming silliness

2013/11/14 Telmo Menezes > Hi Alberto, > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: > > Yes. > > > > I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because > > that is a waste of time, > > Mentioning apocalyptic narratives is an important point. These are a >

Re: Global warming silliness

: RE: Global warming silliness From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness >>To perform a fix

Re: Global warming silliness

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 11/14/2013 3:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> Good one, Chris. >>> >>> But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear >>> of >>> government. In the U.S. sinc

Re: Global warming silliness

On 17 November 2013 08:36, Telmo Menezes wrote: > No, I am concerned that the global warming scare can be exploited to > convince the people to relinquish more of its freedoms to the > government. > > You mean the people still have some freedoms to relinquish? The government doesn't need global

Re: Global warming silliness

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:12 PM, LizR wrote: > On 17 November 2013 08:36, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> No, I am concerned that the global warming scare can be exploited to >> convince the people to relinquish more of its freedoms to the >> government. >> > You mean the people still have some freedo

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is not >trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning us about global >warming. It is in the scientific research literature. You didn't find lies >about drones or dru

Re: Global warming silliness

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is >>> not >>> >trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning us about >>> > global >>> >warming. It is in th

Re: Global warming silliness

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 Richard Ruquist wrote: > Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was > rising. Can you explain that? > I can't explain that, nor do I understand why in the late Ordovician period 450 million years ago there was a huge 4400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphe

Re: Global warming silliness

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > wait to see what happens to the cancer rates over the next fifty years. > I don't now about Fukushima but I do know that the predictions of huge increases of cancer from Chernobyl have proved to be enormous exaggerations: http://www.ny

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/16/2013 2:37 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/11/14 Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> Hi Alberto, On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Yes. > > I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalyp

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is not trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning us about global wa

Re: Global warming silliness

This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work. No one is going to clean up the commons, just as they didn't in medieval villages, because there is no incentive for an individual, or a specific group, to do so. The tragedy of t

Re: Global warming silliness

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR wrote: > This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market > solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work. Yes, but this is circular. You're saying that the market cannot work for things that you do not allow to be part of the market.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR wrote: > > This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market > > solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work. > > Yes, but this is circular. You're saying that the market cannot work

Re: Global warming silliness

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM, LizR wrote: > On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR wrote: >> > This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market >> > solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work. >> >> Yes, but this

Re: Global warming silliness

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government > is >>

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote: On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes > wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: > This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market > solution can't - o

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/18/2013 4:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: In fact, in the 90s Microsoft wasn't too happy with how the web was suddenly exploding and out of their control. Using their monopolistic position, they created a browser and gave it away for free, then stalled its development. This created a tragedy of

  1   2   >