Poor Canadians

[pb3vr6 at yahoo.com (Tonee Northam)]

Could you use some smaller words Brian, I'm a little slow, like being beat by a bug behind a tree with a flat tire.
   
  btw Dee: I just saw a commercial for GGW(Guys Gone Wild) so guess what you're getting for Christmas.
   
  Tonee
  Mr.Slow

Brian McGarvey <bmcgarvey@gmail.com> wrote:
  blah blah blah..

If you want to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, any of them.
You cant say to the current Buzzword bingo, hey all you dorks are
wrong. Especially, when the money supporting the studies are only one
sided. Anybody experiencing the mini-ice age (similar to the middle
ages in europe) predicted in the 80's?

And because that hole in the ozone is predictable (with some error) by
the weather around the "rolling 40's"..

Also if the ozone hole was only big now. why is Austrailia baked....
think about that one. its cause the hole gets bigger & smaller
radiation goes up and down..

also here are som other variables.
orbit about the sun year to year variation, ( closer & farther away)
sun output variation.. (currently 1% increase...)

No doubt we are polluting.. the question is how much compared to
nature.... nobody wants to address that there is no money in the *sky
is NOT falling*


and for the nerds out there

div(particles*velocity*momentum) in R1,2,3 is not
velocity(dot)gradient(velocity) which is one of the major
simplifications in hydrodynamic (gas, water, plasmas,etc) flow. so
when they get that right.. letm know now.

On 10/17/06, Chris wrote:
> Published on Monday, July 24, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times
> Global Warming-- Signed, Sealed, and Delivered
> Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the
> principal cause.
> by Naomi Oreskes
>
> An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a
> published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the
> reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated
> again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
>
> I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the
> journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The
> argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet
> posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal ? the normal way
> to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even
> get my name right!)
>
> My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within
> the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human
> activities are the principal cause.
>
> Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been
> addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course,
> be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a
> single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals
> between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the
> National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the
> last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
> gas concentrations."
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> [The rest of the article:]
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-28.htm
>
> Mtl-Marc wrote:
> > There is actually no "scientific proof" that there is global warming going
> > on. The world scietists just don't agree on that one.
> >
> > It is nice to think we don't consume more than necessary, and it is very
> > noble to try to lower our gas consumption, but to follow the Kyoto Protocol
> > would cost so much that it would bring the western world economies down to a
> > stop. This is why the US Government will not follow it, and many other
> > western world governments won't follow it either.
> >
> > The alarmists will try to tell you we are heading to dooms day, but they are
> > just trying to scare people off for their own hidden agendas. It also makes
> > for really good media coverage to show you a bird dunk in crude oil on a
> > beach, than telling you that the air is actually getting cleaner and that
> > the waters are less polluted than they were the last century.
> >
> > Yes "poor canadians" because the previous gevernments were more interested
> > in satisfying all these private interest groups with our tax money.
> >
> > Aren't you tired to have 40% of your income revenues funding our third world
> > countries roads and our third world countries healthcare system? I know I am
> > sick of it.
> >
> > I hope the conservative government cuts down on unnecessary spending and red
> > tape, like the gun registry, Kyoto, and tons of other silly exemples and
> > lower the taxes back to a normal western world rate so we can spend the
> > money ourselves and have a choice, like private helthcare services.
> >
> > For once we don't have a left wing bleeding heart government in Ottawa. I'll
> > keep Prime Minister Harper over the Liberals anytime.
> >
> > Thank you for reading this Canadian Politic rant, but Julie started it, not
> > me... :-)
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : julie@menloparkrandd.com [mailto:julie@menloparkrandd.com]
> >> Envoy? : 16 octobre 2006 20:01
> >> ? : desinor@sympatico.ca; julie@menloparkrandd.com
> >> Cc : Org, Scirocco
> >> Objet : Re: Poor Canadians
> >>
> >> The "Poor Candians" was an attempt at sarcasm.
> >> Our (US) Govt and the companies behind it are on the same
> >> stupid path. Make as much money as you can, as fast as you
> >> can, regardless of the out come.
> >> The panic of the gas shortage in the 70's has been long
> >> forgotten. Any research stopped and shelved If we had kept
> >> going with the research, what would we be driving today?
> >> Make the move, be smarter than the american govt.
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jean-Claude Desinor [mailto:desinor@sympatico.ca]
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 07:12 PM
> >>> To: julie@menloparkrandd.com
> >>> Cc: 'Org, Scirocco'
> >>> Subject: Re: Poor Canadians
> >>>
> >>> What do you mean, "poor Canadians"?
> >>> I totally agree with the goal of reducing emissions. I am
> >> dismayed by
> >>> the attitude of our current moronic Canadian government.
> >> They have all
> >>> but decided to drop the goals of the Kyoto accords. They say
> >> the goals
> >>> are unrealistic and are asking for "scientific proof" that there is
> >>> global warming.
> >>>
> >>> Jean-Claude
> >>> 84 8v, soon to get into hibernation
> >>> 96 Jetta GLS, will slug it through the smog and snow.
> >>> All three of us waiting for the next elections
> >>>
> >>> julie@menloparkrandd.com a ?crit :
> >>>> Cath, after your last post....
> >>>>
> >> > >>>> dex.html>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>

_______________________________________________
Scirocco-l mailing list
Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l