[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

[Maury Siskel]

Yes, Jess, it might be prudent to break wind less frequently inside your 
own home -- that is up to you and your family. But when the mayor and 
city council stipulate a limit on how frequently anyone in your family 
does this, you now have an entirely different odor ... especially when 
no one knows yet if it only smells badly or whether it is actually 
harmful.  Just as a national agency has imposed a 1.5 gal. limit on the 
stool tank size you can purchase -- for the good of the nation even when 
effective use now requires three flushes rather than one  ... and so on. 
Besides, less stuff (CO2) might very well be harmful to plant life ... 
LNT?  Sometimes, the honest answer is that we only know a partial answer 
... .  which hardly qualifies for requiring conformity worldwide at 
massive cost.
Best,
Maury&Dog  (MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com)
==================
Jess Addis wrote:

>I just don't think we can know what we don't know. How many billion/trillion
>metric tons of pollutants/stuff (yes that's a technical term) can we
>continue to pump into our paper thin atmosphere and hope that the earth can
>absorb or sequester it.
>
>Sun spot activity? Orbital perturbations? Etc. etc. - yes they occur.  But
>we don't have enough data to understand the interrelationships and
>complexity of all those variables. We just can't know what we don't know.
>
>At some point, would be prudent to put less of that stuff into our
>atmosphere? Are we there yet, and how do we know?  How many people would we
>allow to sit inside our homes and smoke cigarettes on a continuing basis
>before we might consider opening a window?
>
>Yes, I'm all for nuclear power and I'm am probably pretty similar socially
>and politically to many, if not most the "people in power in Washington now
>of the present admin".  I've made most of my living from nuclear power and
>research for most of my working lifetime.
>
>Jess Addis, RSO
>Clemson University
>
>
>
>December 4, 2009
>
>Variations in global temperature over the last 100 years are well 
>correlated to sunspot activity. Here is one theory I found in the
>literature:
>
>Apparently it is solar sun-spot activity that indirectly alters the 
>earth's albedo and causes  temperature variations, not carbon 
>dioxide. Sun spots involve electromagnetic storms that interfere with 
>the flux of cosmic protons that create charged condensation nuclei 
>increasing cloud formation in the upper atmosphere. Clouds help cool 
>the earth by reflecting away the sun's heat. Low levels of sun spots 
>indicate that cosmic protons showers are hitting the ,atmosphere with 
>little interference improving cloud formation. There is a shortage of 
>sun spots now. so the Earth will probably be getting cooler for many years.
>
>This has been suggested in the scientific literature and in some 
>popular press articles but the carbon dioxide induced global warming 
>myth has become tenacious doctrine by politicians and environmental 
>activists. Meanwhile draconian measures to stop the use of 
>carbonaceous fuels may seriously hinder business activities and hurt 
>our economy.
>
>Personally, I believe that nuclear power is hated or feared by the 
>people in power in Washington now, so I don't expect any progress 
>along those lines.
>
>Otto
>
>
>
>Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
>Center for Health & the Environment
>University of California
>One Shields Avenue
>Davis, CA 95616
>E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
>Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140  
>_______________________________________________
>  
>