Re: [Global Warming] Re: Fw: U.S. Senate Passes Resolution in Support of Mandatory Limits on U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Those will happen, regardless of ANYTHING man does in regards to political
Heck, we have no idea what caused climate c hanges over the last how many
millenia, how on earth do we claim to know some microscopic change in
gaseous makeup will do it now?
WE DO NOT.
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
----- Original Message -----
From: "George E Matthew" <george.matthew@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Global Warming] Re: Fw: U.S. Senate Passes Resolution in
Support of Mandatory Limits on U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
> Dear Sir/Madam
> When we talk of costs, why do we not consider the cost of allowing global
> warming to happen? What will be the cost of numerous hurricanes, cyclones
> and floods? Of food supplies being disrupted? Of large number s of
> persons? Of riots and social insecurity that will happen as a
> consequence?This cost will be borne by all of us-not just the one
> industry(oil/coal/gas) that will be affected by regulation. Hence the cost
> of regulation is much less than the cost of no regulation.
> George Matthew
> On 7/1/05, Peter K Anderson <Hartlod@...> wrote:
> > Not "smoke & mirrors" dmgan106, and i think the term "article" a little
> > overstating.
> > The lobby against this regulation was not on any basis related to "anti
> > global warming sentiment" but on the basis of the cost to industry of
> > mandatory regulation especially.
> > In a manner, the lobby was successful, the regulations passed as
> > on the whole.
> > It is the attempt by the few who try to misrepresent any dealing with
> > pollution as being associated with "anti global warming sentiment" that
> > undermining respect for Greenpeace especially.
> > "Backslapping" is also obvious, especially when over material with
> > unfairly slanted views that ignore easy to find alternative reasonings.
> > It was widely reported the input of State and Trade departments in these
> > regulaions, along with the input of the Department of Energy and of
> > Environment.
> > It would help if you ceased using the term "bushies", as in Australia
> > term can mean either a person who lives in the "outback", or a
> > conservationist.
> > Your's, Peter K. Anderson (a.k.a. Hartlod(r))
> > From the Pocket PC of Peter K. Anderson
> > E-Mail: Hartlod@...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: "dmgan106"<email@example.com>
> > >Sent: 1/07/05 2:39:15 AM
> > >To: "firstname.lastname@example.org"<email@example.com>
> > >Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Fw: U.S. Senate Passes Resolution in
> > Support of Mandatory Limits on U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
> > >
> > >Thanks for the article, Mike. I found the media's coverage a bit
> > >confusing myself and I try to follow this closely. It seems to me
> > >extremely significant that the Senate passed this in spite of
> > >extreme opposition by the Bushies and their lobbyists. I think the
> > >smoke and mirrors the Bushies are putting out are finally being seen
> > >for what they are.
> > <snip for size>
> > ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > - Visit your group
> > on the web.
> > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > ------------------------------
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- There is yet to be shown a link tween the so-called Greenhouse Gases and ANY concept of a warming process, that is where the protests attached run foul of Science.
It is not enough to cite an observation and allude to an attachment, or state a "belief" that an attachment exists.
The GHG concept failed in its presentations to gain any validation, twice, so was and still is simply given "credence", not proven attachment.
The actual properties of the materials involved do not support the hypothetical link made by the GHG concept, and never have.
The use of the knowledge involved by, and applied within, the Ghg concepts is also not made in a valid manner. This is not saying such knowledge is itself invalid, but it still needs to be properly applied if the result are to be considered valid, be that in an experiment, or in the assembly of a hypothesis.
There is a consistent misuse of Quantum effects to try to attribute kinetic energy gains by CO2 molecules when the Quantum Theory is actually indicating energy is to be expressed as a photonic reemission of non-kinetic energy.
CO2 is a large player in the Atmospheric Photonic Cascade, which suspends non-kinetic energy expressed as Photons within the atmosphere, which can be converted to kinetic energy when incident to a water molecule. At this point the energy becomes expressable as an intrinsic energy gain of/by the H2O molecule, i.e. The H2O molecules is said to be "heated".
This kinetic energy is conducted through the atmosphere by conduction, i.e. Kinetic energy transfer by/during physical collision tween molecules.
CO2 has a much lesser ability to make intrinsic kinetic energy gains, the ratio of these gains H2O:CO2 is ~100:1.
Introducing more CO2 and (and due to the similar behaviour of) other "GHG's", actually reduces the trend of H2O to be incident to the Photons suspended in the Cascade, reducing intrinsic kinetic gains of H2O and so the secondary source of kinetic energy input to the atmosphere (the primary source being the planetary surface, principally "dry land").
Thus the so-called GHG's are part of a cooling mechanism, based on reduction of secondary kinetic energy inputs to the atmosphere.
This has been detailed by myself in greater complexity that i will repost when i get "home".
You can read in the thread i began titled
'What "global warming" really is.'
the implication of increased turbulence due to kinetic energy inputs to the atmosphere.
There will not be large temperature gains, there will not be famine more than already exists, there will be alterations to "seasonal" climate and weather patterning as turbulence WILL increase rapidly to disperse/dissipate kinetic energy input.
The "Perfect Storm" will be far more common, for instance.
Remember, Temperature is a scaled measure of "heat", and "heat" is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules of a sample.
Turbulence is induced to dissipate kinetic energy, and will occur in the atmosphere as kinetic energy is inputted, so recordings of large temperature increases will not occur, it will not get much warmer, just more turbulent.
The entire premise presented by the "GHG/global warming" arguement is simply and obviously wrong in many expressions of energy/matter interactions, hence the "points" raised by those punditing the hypothesis being overlooked to a great extent.
This does not mean those NOT listening to the presentation of "GHG" concepts and related material are uncaring of the environment, they simply recognise the flaws the vocal minority still try to overlook or avoid noticing.
We all care, we care enough to tell those who protect the ghg concept to start showing concern for the biosphere instead of their agenda. Pollution is all the emmision of GHG's need be considered, they have nought shown to do with a warming process.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson (a.k.a. Hartlod®)
From the Pocket PC of Peter K. Anderson
In response to:-
>From: "George E Matthew"<george.matthew@...>
>Sent: 1/07/05 4:33:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [Global Warming] Re: Fw: U.S. Senate Passes Resolution in Support of Mandatory Limits on U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
>When we talk of costs, why do we not consider the cost of allowing global
>warming to happen? What will be the cost of numerous hurricanes, cyclones
>and floods? Of food supplies being disrupted? Of large number s of displaced
>persons? Of riots and social insecurity that will happen as a
>consequence?This cost will be borne by all of us-not just the one
>industry(oil/coal/gas) that will be affected by regulation. Hence the cost
>of regulation is much less than the cost of no regulation.