[ RadSafe ] [ Understanding the "global warning" issue)

Wed May 4 14:38:01 CDT 2011

I support nuclear power because it is clean and safe, and would be inexpensive but for the anti-everything crowd throwing lawsuit upon lawsuit at the entire industry.  The benefits of nuclear power are strong on their own merits.  What I cannot support is the perpetuation of a lie in order to strengthen our case.

Glenn Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Gallego
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 3:05 PM
To: 'Jerry Cohen'; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [ Understanding the "global warning" issue)

I would think the future of nuclear power is much brighter if it turns out
that global warming is caused by human activity. It would be ironic if it
turns out that the "vast majority of the people on this list knew man-made
global warming is not true".

Rich Gallego

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:50 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [ Understanding the "global warning" issue)

It is irrelevant whether global temperatures are now increasing or
decreasing.
There is abundant evidence that historically, the global climate is cyclical
in nature varying between periods of temperature increase and decrease.
According to Dr. Fred Singer, former NASA meteorological chief, these
meteorological cycles last about 1500 years and although we may be in a
phase of increasing temperature, it is merely part of this cyclical pattern.
In all likelihood, the climatological cycle will comtinue regardless of what
mankind does or does not do. In the overall scheme of things, man's effect
on the climate will, in any case, be puny. Political measures such as cap
and trade would have a far more serious effect on our economy than on the
climate.
Jerry Cohen

________________________________
From: Brian Riely <brian.riely at gmail.com>
To: Roger Helbig <rhelbig at sfo.com>; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wed, May 4, 2011 9:27:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Luckey vs Caldicott

Hi Roger

I do not plan to get into a lengthy discussion about man-made global warming
and I thought the vast majority of the people on this list knew man-made
global warming is not true.

Some comments:

Wrt polar bears, you can find reports on the internet that say the polar
bear population is increasing and you can find reports that say it is
decreasing.  The reports that I read that say the polar bear population is
decreasing use anecdotal evidence, or just sample one area, or use a
questionable measuring method.  The reports that show the polar bear
population is increasing are very thorough.  Additionally, I could not find
a report that links polar bear population with temperature and address other
issue that might effect polar bear population.  I do know that the warmth of
the Alaskan pipe line is credited with increasing the wild life population
in Alaska.

During the past several years the arctic ice has been thickening.  There is
a satellite image taken around 2003 that shows the arctic ice in the North
Pole to be the thinnest on record, which is used to prove the arctic ice is
thinning.  That thinning was not due to global warming because at the same
time images showed the arctic ice in the South Pole thickening.  During the
past several years there are many reports that ice-breakers that were able
to break the ice before are now having trouble due to the thickening ice.

When we were actually experiencing global warming, the same equipment that
measured global warming on earth measured global warming on mars.

IPCC report concluded that there is global warming but there is no evidence
that man is responsible for it.  That statement was taken out of the report
by one individual.  This is in several sources including the book by
Lawrence Soloman reference below.

All of the reports that I have seen, except for the ones by Jim Hansen of
NASA, which climate gate should have discredited, indicate that we have been
in global cooling since around 1998.

Because of the evidence of global cooling, the phase has changed from
"global cooling" to "climate change."  I have heard educators claim that
global warming causes global cooling.  I saw a video from the UK that was
posted 10 years claiming that because of global warming children in the UK
will no longer experience snow and in the past I have read that the reason
we are experience very little snow is because of global warming.  Because of
the global increase in snow during the past year or two, the media is now
replete with stories of how global warming is causing an increase in snow.
If the temperature goes up that is proof of global warming, if the
temperature goes down that is proof of global warming, if there is a
decrease in snow that is proof of global warming, if there is an increase of
snow, that is proof of global warming, if "event A" happens that is proof of
global warming, if "event not-A"  happens that is proof of global warming.

There is a lot of money involved with the man-made global  warming  agenda.
A writer for the U.K. Telegraph wrote

None of the lobbying has been more telling than a statement issued by 259
investment organisations, controlling 'collective assets totalling over $15
trillion' - including major banks, insurance companies and pension funds.
These are the bodies calling most stridently for "government action on
climate change", because they are the ones who hope to make vast sums of
money out of it," wrote Christopher Booker. "They are desperate for a treaty
of the type they failed to get at Copenhagen - even more so since the
collapse of the US cap and trade bill - because they see their chance of
turning global warming into the most lucrative fruit machine in history
dwindling by the month.

I read a book by an environmentalist, Lawrence Soloman, called the The
Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming
Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud *And those who are too fearful to
do so.  The book mentions that Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the
Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of
Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the
global warming panic.  In other words, when you apply the proper statistical
techniques to the climate data, there is no hockey stick.

Lord Monkton has a ton of evidence to dispute global warming claims.  His
video http://www.cfact.org/a/1652/Monckton-names-names-on-Climategate
exposes a lot of the fraud in man-made global warming.  Note that his
presentation is replete with facts.

A Russian study released 4 years ago indicated that we will be entering a
mini ice age soon
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20516/Little_Ice_Age_May_Return_S
oon_Russian_Scientists_Say.html

A German Scientist predicts we are now in the start of an ice age.
http://www.helium.com/items/2045473-scientist-predicts-new-ice-age-now-appro
aching?page=2

Most significantly, Phil Jones, one of the foremost proponents of man-made
global warming admitted there has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishm
ent-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

I can provide a lot more evidence that man-made global warming is not true;
however, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rhelbig at sfo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:53 AM
To: brian.riely at gmail.com
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Luckey vs Caldicott

So do I and many others on this list - I presume you do not - that is your
right to an opinion.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Riely
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:41 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Luckey vs Caldicott

It means he believe in man-made global warming.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Addis
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:29 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Luckey vs Caldicott

It was easy.

What does "totaling in the tank for man-made global warming" mean?

LA

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Riely
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:37 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Luckey vs Caldicott

How can you claim someone who is totaling in the tank for man-made global
warming as a "voice of reason"?

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Addis
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:50 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Luckey vs Caldicott

That was a good read. George Monbiot? Thank you! I've never heard of him,
but he is a lone voice of reason from media circles so far.

And the best I can say for Ms. Caldicott? Idiot.

Larry Addis

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:09 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Luckey vs Caldicott

Perhaps the link should be sent to NYT.

Sent from my iPad

On 04/05/2011, at 10:38, Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:

> May 3
>
>        This is a superb article.  Thank you, Patricia, for sending the
link to RADSAFE.
>
> Steven Dapra
>
>
> At 10:48 AM 5/3/2011, you wrote:
>> Some might find this link of interest (forwarded to me by one of our
>> guests):
>>
>> email snip:
>>
>> "... Caldicott has made a very lucrative career by pretending that
science
>> is behind her position, and just recently she was involved with a
>> dispute with a man named George Monbiot, a man well known in England
>> ... who
reacted
>> to the lack of radiation disaster in Japan recently by saying he had
>> to rethink all he thought he knew about the dangers of nuclear power,
>> that
is,
>> he now knew it wasn't nearly as dangerous as he thought.  He writes
>> for
the
>> Guardian, I think, and is widely followed.  B. Gore"
>>
>> http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Patricia Lewis
>> Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine
>> PO Box 67
>> Boulder MT 59632
>> 406 225-3383 (ofc)
>> 888 890-5860 (ofc toll free)
>> http://www.radonmine.com
>> *"fan" us on Facebook !*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list