Prev: Free Clean, Green Energy
Next: If Obama Gives Amnesty, This Is What Will Happen To Us
From: Transition Zone on 8 May 2010 09:27
So, how do Pro-Pollution Repubs explain the hole in the ozone layer?
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 00:52
the first question is,
How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there?

there is no proof that there were none of these weather patterns,
before a satellite was launched in the late '70s (TOMS). now,
on the other hand, the theory about CFCs on ice crystals is not
that bad, but it has never been shown to be true, because
it'd be so difficult to collect those samples. (also,
CFCs are produced by volcanoes e.g.)

so, combine the "global" warming simulacra,
with the "holes" in the ozonosphere -- if it is possible, because
it is not trivial -- and instantly have a better model (like,
the one that Ahrrenius should have come-up with,
in 1895: an actually glass house at some lattitude .-)

thus:
Gore *and* the UNIPCC got a Nobel; so, that was obviously because
the energy companies *love* the Kyoto Protocol (and
all other capNtrade schemes, Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 e.g.)

whenthenat the Anthropocene, it is clear that
human landscape changes are the greatest effects
on the weather and CO2 concebtrations, less-so the use
of Fossilized Fuels (TM; Obnoxico).

as for the "holes in the ozonosphere,"
there is utterly no evidence that they never existed,
before we launched a satellite (TOMS) to look at it; also,
they are really just patterns of weather:
how many "holes" are there in teh ozonosphere,
at any given time?

so, combine the two models, "global" warming and
"holes" in the ozonosphere, and you've got a good,
first-pass computerized simulacrum of a "glass house,"
which has been missing since Ahrrenius defined the term, and
did *not* get the first Nobel for it.

thus:
"photons" are the only thing
-- 0-dimensional massless particles,
thought to exist til Kaluza and stringtheory --
that can "go" at c with no momentum, because
they are not waves. in particular,
they are not the "plane waves" of math-phys idealization, because
they always have a curvature, no matter how far they "go"
from the source.

how is a wave (quantum) of light emitted from the whole surface
(quantum)
of a Sun?

thus:
Gauss meaasured the curvature
of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
triangulatin' that contested area .-)

thus:
notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.

thus:
sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
have read in an article about his retirement.

> I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> capNtrade e.g.).
> what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> his real "proof" is _1599_;
> the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]:
"Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They
can ?!?"
* His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain;
so?
From: Siobhan Medeiros on 9 May 2010 01:08
On May 8, 9:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> the first question is,
> How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there?
>
> there is no proof that there were none of these weather patterns,
> before a satellite was launched in the late '70s (TOMS).  now,
> on the other hand, the theory about CFCs on ice crystals is not
> that bad, but it has never been shown to be true, because
> it'd be so difficult to collect those samples.  (also,
> CFCs are produced by volcanoes e.g.)
>
> so, combine the "global" warming simulacra,
> with the "holes" in the ozonosphere -- if it is possible, because
> it is not trivial -- and instantly have a better model (like,
> the one that Ahrrenius should have come-up with,
> in 1895: an actually glass house at some lattitude .-)
>
> thus:
> Gore *and* the UNIPCC got a Nobel; so, that was obviously because
> the energy companies *love* the Kyoto Protocol (and
> all other capNtrade schemes, Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 e.g.)
>
> whenthenat the Anthropocene, it is clear that
> human landscape changes are the greatest effects
> on the weather and CO2 concebtrations, less-so the use
> of Fossilized Fuels (TM;  Obnoxico).
>
> as for the "holes in the ozonosphere,"
> there is utterly no evidence that they never existed,
> before we launched a satellite (TOMS) to look at it; also,
> they are really just patterns of weather:
> how many "holes" are there in teh ozonosphere,
> at any given time?
>
> so, combine the two models, "global" warming and
> "holes" in the ozonosphere, and you've got a good,
> first-pass computerized simulacrum of a "glass house,"
> which has been missing since Ahrrenius defined the term, and
> did *not* get the first Nobel for it.
>
> thus:
> "photons" are the only thing
> -- 0-dimensional massless particles,
> thought to exist til Kaluza and stringtheory --
> that can "go" at c with no momentum, because
> they are not waves.  in particular,
> they are not the "plane waves" of math-phys idealization, because
> they always have a curvature, no matter how far they "go"
> from the source.
>
> how is a wave (quantum) of light emitted from the whole surface
> (quantum)
> of a Sun?
>
> thus:
> Gauss meaasured the curvature
> of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
> of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
> triangulatin' that contested area .-)
>
> thus:
> notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
> the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
> I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
> who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.
>
> thus:
> sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
> later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
> have  read in an article about his retirement.
>
> > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> > capNtrade e.g.).
> >     what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> > his real "proof" is _1599_;
> > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.....
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
>
> --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]:
> "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They
> can ?!?"
> * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain;
> so?

Are you on drugs?
From: Republiphilia on 9 May 2010 15:00
On May 9, 1:08 am, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> On May 8, 9:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the first question is,
> > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there?
>
>Are you on drugs?

Good question.
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 15:49
there is a standard answer to the question,
Am you on drugs?... which is,
Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool!

there is also a very standard answer to,
How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although
it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;"
do you recall this "news?"

> >  >  How many "holes" in the ozonosphere,  are there?

thus:
sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
have read in an article about his retirement.
I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.).
what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
his real "proof" is _1599_;
the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost
of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in
'91
under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Free Clean, Green Energy
Next: If Obama Gives Amnesty, This Is What Will Happen To Us