[ RadSafe ] Re: Global Warming

[Dimiter Popoff]

Hmm, I was beginning to think something was wrong with me being
against acting based on things we don't know :-) .

The thing with the global warming religion is that it is that - and
believers don't need to know, they are just fine with their belief.

You may expose the priests in fraud as many times as you like,
they will perhaps replace the sinners and carry on with their
religion - history tells us that.

And with the power of todays media - the vast majority of people
*think* what they have heard on TV the day before - it does not
help that those (this?) who control the media want to have people
believe in "global warming" (which, incidentally, has not been
observed since 1998, the temperatures since have been falling - I
read such an article some months back on the BBC website; among
those promoting global warming, we are free to pick which
to trust.... :-) ).


Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com   http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm  <---- new
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

> From: garyi at trinityphysics.com
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:33:15 -0600
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
> 
> Jess, you're right that we don't know. Since that is true, and since it turns out that the earth, 
> regardless of any "scientific concensus", isn't going to blow up tomorrow, don't you think it 
> would be a good idea to hold up on drastic measures until we have real reasons to 
> implement them? 
> 
> I'm all for fresh air. I deplore smoking - glad that you agree. My mother and grandfather died 
> of lung Ca and emphysema - both lifelong smokers. 
> 
> The radical changes being proposed are not going to stop pollution. They are just going to 
> make energy really really expensive and kill an already severely weak economy. 
> 
> Did you hear that the Nepal cabinet just held a meeting atop Everest to highlight the dangers 
> of Global Warming? Doesn't that seem incredibly absurd in light of recent revelations? And 
> the US president seems determined to ignore the same revelations. We've all heard the 
> phrase "global warming denier". What would the opposite term be? When I refer to 
> otherwise smart people who pretend that certain facts don't exist, I like to use the phrase, 
> "liar". If they aren't that smart, I make allowances. 
> 
> You want to stop pollution? Great, but couldn't we at least switch to another energy source 
> before we have to turn out the lights and park the cars? 
> 
> Gary Isenhower 
> 
> On 5 Dec 2009 at 20:40, 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 
>
>
>