skepticism alive and well (was Re: [Vo]: Fw:
[BOBPARKS-...])
Hi Robin,
What you are missing is that spending money on reducing unimportant GHG
emissions could be spent on technology for surviving natural climate
change. The IPCC is shooting themselves in the head.
Dave
What you
Michel Jullian wrote:
Now you mention it, anybody knows if anything positive came out of
their Toyota/Technova funded CF lab in Nice, France?
Many positive results came from this effort:
1. Johnson-Matthey learned how to make Pd that works nearly every
time. They characterize the material
-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Global warming skepticism alive and well (was Re: [Vo]: Fw:
[BOBPARKS-...])
Michel Jullian wrote:
Now you mention it, anybody knows if anything positive came out of
their Toyota/Technova funded CF lab in Nice, France
Michel Jullian wrote:
Thanks for the rich historical details, but am I correct in
understanding that nothing positive _actually came out_ of it . . .
That is incorrect. See the paper I referenced earlier:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
74 watts continuously for 40 to
Pathological scepticism is not the same as deliberately lying to cover up
meaningful results.
P.
At 09:43 AM 2/7/2007 -0500, you wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Now you mention it, anybody knows if anything positive came out of
their Toyota/Technova funded CF lab in Nice, France?
Many
Philip Winestone wrote:
Pathological scepticism is not the same as deliberately lying to cover up
meaningful results.
That is true. But in the case of the NHE and Toyota, I sense that the decision
makers do not believe the results, so they lie about them. I think that is also
how the people
Outside of the US it's hilarious to see how even weather, which used to be the
most consensual of topics, has become a political issue there, subject to the
same lack of logic and openness as traditional political arguments.
What you're missing is that if solar output variations contribute
Hi Michel,
What you're missing is that if solar output variations contribute
significantly to global warming, then humans should redouble efforts to
reduce GHG emissions. You shoot yourselves in the foot :)
What you are missing is that spending money on reducing unimportant GHG
emissions
In reply to David Thomson's message of Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:31:11 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Hi Michel,
What you're missing is that if solar output variations contribute
significantly to global warming, then humans should redouble efforts to
reduce GHG emissions. You shoot yourselves in the foot :)
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Michel,
What you're missing is that if solar output variations contribute
significantly to global warming, then humans should redouble efforts to
reduce GHG emissions. You shoot yourselves in the foot :)
What you are missing is that spending money on reducing
10 matches
Mail list logo
