Re: the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- From: "yjr" <uo[@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:43:04 GMT
"BradGuth" <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5a748139-8038-4729-83f1-bcdc8b347484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Think again if you think our NASA gives any hockey puck about the faitI would truly like to understand what you just said. Assume I am a poor
of others.
It's true that human caused soot that's laced with extra CO2 and NOx
is up to no good, not to mention those extra 50 teratonnes of h2o
placed into and sustained within our polluted atmosphere that's going
acidic in most all the wrong places.
However. it's only the money of others, even if it's another hard
earned trillion for salvaging Japan that's getting rather wet and
otherwise bloody as well as otherwise spendy as all get out, it's just
too bad if those pesky Japs and many others (including ourselves)
can't swim or otherwise live under water.
To a great extent these AGW naysay folks are correct, in that humanity
and of its rather excessive fossil energy consumptions and subsequent
pollution via fossil fuel usage is worth perhaps at least 10%, but not
likely 25% of the GW situation. (I'm thinking Al Gore doesn't know any
of this, mostly because it's actual physics and of real science that's
easily replicated)
Two Part AGW or ET Global Warming Quiz
part one: What would our physical planetology and environment be like
if never having a moon, thereby our not having such a seasonal tilt
and subsequently our dealing with roughly 1/3 the tidal issues as
contributed by Earth's orbital and rotational physics related to just
the sun?
part two: What would change about the above physical and thermal
environment upon our extensively ice-age inflicted Earth, once getting
impacted by an icy proto-moon, of such an encounter creating and
sustaining our seasonal tilt, and subsequently being orbited by the
likes of what's currently existing as our physically dark moon?
-
BTW, these two alternatives are each relatively straight forward and
of these days rather simple supercomputer simulations, of which our
NASA has a really good one of 2048 fast CPUs along with all the
necessary physics software, those multiple terabytes of memory and
essentially unlimited data storage.
- Brad Guth
On Jan 9, 4:27 am, "yjr" <uo[@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is scientific proof and the damage between pollution and peoples
health. Why is this ignored by virtually every major tv news agency? Why
have Nasa officals been reprimanded when they talked aboutglobalwarming.
Everyday there are millions being harmed by pollution and one day besides
stress tests if they could test overall lung and heart function and
conditioning Lawyers would know and doctors would know, except for
smoking ,
drug taking and poor diet, the single most cause of illness today is
pollution levels people are made to endure and don't know the damages.
person in line needing a job, rediculed, put down , and ignored and with
asthma. I am just about able to move about because the price of gas and my
health. Maybe they made pollution and high cost of gas so poor people won't
move into your neighborhood?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- From: BradGuth
- Re: the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- References:
- the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- From: yjr
- Re: the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- From: BradGuth
- the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- Prev by Date: World of Renewables - Site Update
- Next by Date: Re: the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- Previous by thread: Re: the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- Next by thread: Re: the harm from dirty air/ pollution/ global warming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|