[ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

Mon Apr 7 14:36:01 CDT 2014

Radsafe,

     No global warming in the past 18 years???   How cool.  This agrees 
well with my posts to radsafe, which suggest that  the Earth's dip angle 
towards the sun was a maximum in 1998 and the Earth is  gradually dipping less 
steeply towards the Sun since 1998.  Data, see the  Nasa VLBI polar motion 
(Chandler wobbles, Annual wobble) data set (NASA Goddard  space center).  I 
explained all this previously on Radsafe --- see the  archives of Radsafe.   The 
next polar motion amplitude peak (and more  warming) will be in 2042.
2020 will be the center (2014-2026) for droughts in Midwest and California  
USA, similar to 1932 (US Dust Bowl).  Hopefully not as severe???

     joe preisig

In a message dated 4/4/2014 10:01:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
brian.riely at gmail.com writes:

Hi  John

I believe your statement about one volcanic eruption is  wrong.  I look at
this a few years ago and I believe man produces much  more CO2 than
volcanoes.

It makes sense to me that the chair should  be an economist rather than a
scientist because one of the goals of all  this climate change stuff is a
redistribution of wealth from the richer  countries to the poorer countries.

Since we have had no global warming  in the past 18 years, all of the
climate models are wrong.

Many  scientist have predicted, based on physical data, that an ice age was
going  to start around 2013.  With record amounts of ice in the south  pole
the past two years, an increasing volume of ice (volume not surface)  in the
North pole, and record cold temperatures in parts of the United  States this
year and parts of Europe last year, there might be some truth  to the ice
age prediction.

If we are truly headed to an ice age,  maybe we should look at ways to
increase CO2 emissions. At the very least,  plants will be happy and we can
create a greener looking  earth.

There has been talk about reducing the amount of cattle.   What will that do
to the price of beef?

It would be nice if the  media would present both sides of the story and not
propaganda to fit a  political agenda, but it is never going to happen in  
my
lifetime.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Dixon, John E.  (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH) <
gyf7 at cdc.gov> wrote:

> Hmm. The "global  warming/climate change discussion rears its ugly head
> again. I have  serious doubts about "science" which advocates a major role
> for man in  global climate change. ONE volcanic eruption puts more 
"climate
>  changing gases" into the atmosphere than ALL of mankind's activities
>  combined (that includes the Industrial Revolution). Have you all seen  
what
> our government plans on doing to 'help' this 'problem' here at  home? They
> plan on 'regulating' COW emissions (picture' gas' here or  some other
> memorable image). You heard that right. How can this be  done? Just force
> farmers to produce fewer cows (less supply will  dramatically increase the
> price of all related food in our country). I  have had enough, but I
> digress...
>
> Please note that the  bulk IPCC report, upon which much of the 'concern' 
of
> man made  contributions is based, was CHAIRED not by a scientist, but 
rather
> by  an ECONOMIST. That's right, an economist. Much of the underdeveloped
>  world contributes more to this 'problem' than the developed world; yet
>  those who authored this ICCP report almost demand that the developed  
world
> solve the problem. And how do they suggest this be done? The  developed
> world must redistribute its wealth! Yes, this 'concern' is  all couched in
> money (give US money to corrupt governments in the  third world in hopes
> that the 'climate change concern' will magically  improve due to emissions
> contributions from the third world. How has  that been working out for
> America? Additionally, much of this  'research' is based upon modeling -
> which models depends upon what  country is in the front of the line for 
the
>  discussion.
>
> Throughout all of this we must all remember that  ALL MODELS ARE WRONG AND
> SOME ARE USEFUL.
>
> My 2 cents  worth.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
>  From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
>  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
> Sent:  Monday, January 27, 2014 3:02 PM
> To: 'The International Radiation  Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ]  Auer on Global Warming
>
> I can only speak for myself. I post on  the topic because the topic of
> global warming has been wrapped up into  the topic of nuclear energy - 
most
> prominently by nuclear energy  advocacy groups. As I mentioned earlier,
> there are plenty of good  reasons to stop burning fossil fuels, just as
> there are plenty of good  reasons to use nuclear energy. If the most
> prominent argument in  either the climate change OR the nuclear energy
> debate ends up being  based more on politics than on science - and if the
> science turns out  to be wrong - then all of the other reasons might fall 
as
> well, due  only to their association with a discredited idea.
>
> To put the  last piece in place - a lot of RSTs, HPs, and nuclear 
engineers
> have  an obvious stake in whether or not we build more nuclear reactors or
>  just start tearing down those that we have. That alone should make it  a
> relevant topic for this list-server.
>
>  Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
>  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of McCloskey, Pat
> Sent:  Monday, January 27, 2014 2:28 PM
> To: The International Radiation  Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Auer  on Global Warming
>
> David,
>
> If I had said I don't  know why this site continues to "post" submissions
> rather than  "receive"; you would have a point with your censorship
> statement. I  questioned the motivation of the submitters. If it were 
only a
> few  climate change submittals, I would welcome the insight, but after so
>  many, I question the motivation.
>  http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps44.pdf
>
> Pat
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> 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

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