The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: Whata Fool on 28 Nov 2008 04:10 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > I give some hope since in recent modern times Republicans in large >part gave USA an ethanol mandate mandated to come specifically from >*USA-grown corn* in response to lobbyists! Where were you when the grain elevators were filled to overflowing with corn, and the price was so low many people were burning it for space heating (In England and other places). > The alternative crop for ethanol, enough of a weed to lack a lobby, is >switchgrass! > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) Neither the ethanol plant operators or politicians care what feed stock is used, and the corn lobby really doesn't care either as long as there is enough market to pay farmers a sustainable price, the lobby was to help keep farmers from going broke. At any rate, the present price of gasoline here of $1.53 a gallon may force going to a cheaper source.
From: bill.sloman on 28 Nov 2008 04:42 On 28 nov, 03:53, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Whata Fool wrote: > > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > >The oxygen and nitrogen molecules exchange energy with carbon dioxide > > >molecules whenever they collide, so the carbon dioxide radiates for > > >them. > > > Ignoring water vapor again? Is that a mental problem, or > > an order from control? > > LMFAO ! > > I though it was an acknowledged fact that water vapour is the big factor in climate. Whata Fool doesn't seem to appreciate that there isn't much water vapour in the stratosphere - at -55C the vapour pressure of water is low enough that it's a waste of time to include it in the model. He doesn't seem to know much more science than you do. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 28 Nov 2008 04:47 On 28 nov, 04:27, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Whata Fool wrote: > > >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >> >The oxygen and nitrogen molecules exchange energy with carbon dioxide > >> >molecules whenever they collide, so the carbon dioxide radiates for > >> >them. > > >> Ignoring water vapor again? Is that a mental problem, or > >> an order from control? > > >LMFAO ! > > >I though it was an acknowledged fact that water vapour is the big factor in climate. > > >Graham > > I should not have been flippant, the last couple of replies seem > to suggest that the atmosphere would get hotter without any GHGs, and > you know what that means to GreenHouse Theory and Anthropogenic Global > Warming. That suggestion is generated by your own inadequate understanding of the subject under discussion. You clearly don't know enough elementary physics to undertand what I'm telling you, and this forum isn't a suitalbe place for me to take you through a beginner's course in the subject. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 28 Nov 2008 07:12 On 27 nov, 16:26, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > On 27 nov, 01:04, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > For some bizarre reason you put your trust in a bunch of web-sites > > > > funded by Exxon-Mobil and other groups with a financial interest in > > > > being able to continue to extract and sell the maximum amount of > > > > fossil fuel, despite the dangers that this poses to our environment. > > > > Oh really ? > > > >http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php > > > This does seem to be another industry front group - New Zealand > > doesn't seem to have the sort of public information laws that would > > let us find out who is paying, but the members do show up at > > fuel industry funded jamborees acoss the world, > > Who are we, and why? <snipped the usual fossil-fuel boiler-plate> > YOU WERE SAYING ? There are a whole bunch of similar organisations around, sporting similar lists of superannuated scientists with academic backgrounds more or less related to climate science. Most of them can be shown to have gotten money from Exxon-Mobil and other fossil fuel industries. You don't have to look at all that many of them to recognise the pattern, and it helps that there don't seem to be all that many corruptible scientists around, so the same people tend to show up in different websites. Graham - gullible nitwit that he is - seems to find the familiarity comforting. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 28 Nov 2008 08:04
On 27 nov, 16:28, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 > > > Funded by 75 forest products industries spread across the US and > > Canada. > > So NOT Exxon-Mobil at all and why shouldn't forestry people take an interest ? Exxon-Mobil is not the only company to covertly fund global-warming- denial propaganda - in its day it spent more than most, and is now closely watched, but other oil and gas companies do their bit Forest-products groups don't have as strong a motivation to deceive the public about AGW as the fossil fuel extraction industries, but they don't want to be forced to manage theri forests to maximise CO2 capture. because they wouldn't then be in a postion to cut down as many trees as they'd like every year. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |