The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction
in [Physics]
|
Prev: weight
Next: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Apr 2007 06:48 In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794808(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote: <snip> >You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much. But it was fun reading. I come here to get my dose of sanity ;-). /BAH
From: Bill Ward on 22 Apr 2007 13:01 On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:48:59 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: > In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794808(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, > Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote: > <snip> > >>You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much. > > But it was fun reading. I come here to get my dose of sanity ;-). > > /BAH I'm reading in a.g.w. You can't be that bad off! <grin> If you were to get involved here, it would raise the level considerably. We need all the level-headed help we can get. I think the wheels have pretty much come off the AGW bandwagon, but there are some loud, apparently ruthless people still desperately pushing hard. The facts are against them, but they still create a lot of noise and confusion. Fortunately, they can't handle calm rational questions, and often provide entertainment in a bizarre way. Sort of like a cageful of parrots - lots of repetitive squawking and flying feathers, but no comprehension. And not very convincing. Thanks for your post. Bill Ward
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Apr 2007 06:20 In article <pan.2007.04.22.17.00.57.891038(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:48:59 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794808(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, >> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much. >> >> But it was fun reading. I come here to get my dose of sanity ;-). >> >> /BAH > >I'm reading in a.g.w. I'm in s.p. I think it gets some of your spillover. > You can't be that bad off! <grin> Some days I wonder if any exists. > >If you were to get involved here, it would raise the level considerably. >We need all the level-headed help we can get. I've got my fingers in a different pie that would solve your newsgroup's problem, namely learning how to think well (or, at least, better). > I think the wheels have >pretty much come off the AGW bandwagon, hmm...That's not my impression by observing what is a commonplace opinion. Somehow, it seemed that the concept became a "public fact", accepted by everybody, sometime last summer. But I couldn't backtrace to any one thing that pushed it over the credibility line. >but there are some loud, >apparently ruthless people still desperately pushing hard. The facts are >against them, but they still create a lot of noise and confusion. >Fortunately, they can't handle calm rational questions, and often provide >entertainment in a bizarre way. Sort of like a cageful of parrots - lots >of repetitive squawking and flying feathers, but no comprehension. And >not very convincing. I'm not in the biz to convince anybody of anything. I've spent a couple of years studying whether there were any rational methods of explaining difficult and complicated matters to people who are unable to think about certain things. /BAH > >Thanks for your post. You are welcome. :-) /BAH
From: Lloyd on 23 Apr 2007 10:53 On Apr 22, 1:01 pm, Bill Ward <b...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:48:59 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: > > In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, > > Bill Ward <b...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote: > > <snip> > > >>You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much. > > > But it was fun reading. I come here to get my dose of sanity ;-). > > > /BAH > > I'm reading in a.g.w. You can't be that bad off! <grin> > > If you were to get involved here, it would raise the level considerably. > We need all the level-headed help we can get. I think the wheels have > pretty much come off the AGW bandwagon, but there are some loud, > apparently ruthless people still desperately pushing hard. National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, NOAA, Alcoa, DuPont, Duke Energy, BP, Caterpillar, PG&E, Lehman Brothers, GE... >The facts are > against them, Idiot alert! >but they still create a lot of noise and confusion. > Fortunately, they can't handle calm rational questions, and often provide > entertainment in a bizarre way. Sort of like a cageful of parrots - lots > of repetitive squawking and flying feathers, but no comprehension. And > not very convincing. > > Thanks for your post. > > Bill Ward
From: Bill Ward on 23 Apr 2007 14:41
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:53:47 -0700, Lloyd wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:01 pm, Bill Ward <b...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:48:59 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: >> > In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, >> > Bill Ward <b...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote: >> > <snip> >> >> >>You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much. >> >> > But it was fun reading. I come here to get my dose of sanity ;-). >> >> > /BAH >> >> I'm reading in a.g.w. You can't be that bad off! <grin> >> >> If you were to get involved here, it would raise the level considerably. >> We need all the level-headed help we can get. I think the wheels have >> pretty much come off the AGW bandwagon, but there are some loud, >> apparently ruthless people still desperately pushing hard. > > National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, NOAA, Alcoa, DuPont, Duke > Energy, BP, Caterpillar, PG&E, Lehman Brothers, GE... > >>The facts are >> against them, > > Idiot alert! > >>but they still create a lot of noise and confusion. >> Fortunately, they can't handle calm rational questions, and often >> provide entertainment in a bizarre way. Sort of like a cageful of >> parrots - lots of repetitive squawking and flying feathers, but no >> comprehension. And not very convincing. >> >> Thanks for your post. >> >> Bill Ward Thanks for the timely example of your typical post, Lloyd. Here, have a cracker. |