Re: INDIA SAYS "Fuck You" To Global Warming INDUSTRY! (So Do We!)
Arindam Banerjee
and the West in general are melting can be boiled down to just this fact:
THERE ARE FAR FEWER CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTING AEROPLANES FLYING OVER THE
HIMALAYAS
What is most obvious, here, is how the Western scientists bully, ignore and
demean non-Western scientists - I mean, those among them who do not lick
their boots (such as I). My work (based upon finding an incontrovertible
and natural mathematical equation liking mass and energy) debunks Einstein's
bullshit theories. It is showing that the law of conservation of energy is a
special case. And the new law of conservation of mass and energy is
bollocks. It has been widely accepted by many genuine people including true
scientists (not only from India) as being true, subject to experimental
validity. Now, with the recent experimental proof of non-reactive forces in
the electromagnetic rail-gun (to the force on the departing projectile there
is no countering force in the opposite direction, only orthogonally to the
rail spacing supports) my theories are perfectly validated.
My work will lead to the creation of vimans, which will lead humanity to the
stars. But do Western/Westernised scientists/bigwigs want to hear about it?
No! Why? Not just because they are racists and bigots, concerned about
their salaries and pensions primarily. It is also because they do not wish
to look like the most absurd nincompoops for blindly jabbering incredible
einsteinian nonsense for decades. Unfortunately for them, the power of
Usenet and Internet is such, they are in an unenviable situation so far as
the opinion of all future generations is concerned.
Nevertheless, for the present these people have all the money, power and
prestige. They will do their best to protect same. They will not listen to
new proposals to green the earth, which could easily be done with my
invention "The Hydrogen Transmission Network".
They and their masters will continue to pollute the earth, by flying high in
the most abominable human creation, the carbon-dioxide producing aeroplance.
While talking loudly about environmental concerns, they will do their best
to screw up the environment, thus. Unless the younger generation takes a
firm stand, there is no hope for the planet. And their future, too. Do
they really want to live in a hot stuffy world of concrete, with dead seas
and lands, no wildlife at all - only pornography and various sorts of
diseases and whining, laced with the most sickening kind of "humor"? Right
now the abominable media is doing its best to promote fatness - it is only a
question of time before they will try to give the message that all wildlife
is perfectly useless, and the only useful animals are those we find on our
plates. Do we want our future generation to be lazy fatarses - to evolve
into hippos and finally whales?
Yes, about global warming. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - this
everyone agrees. It always sinks, it cannot rise up on its own. Thus all
the carbon dioxide produced on the earth, stays near the earth. If their is
plant life around its production, it will get absorbed by plant life, and we
will have more greenery. However, when Carbon Dioxide is produced in the
high stratosphere (and this is exactly what the jet engines do, and there
are so many and increasing numbers of them) then the Carbon Dioxide forms
there - at high altitudes. It will take a while coming down to Earth, and
in the meantime it will create the greenhouse effect. That is, the heat
from the Earth instead of escaping to Space will be bounced back, and there
will be higher temperatures.
So in those lands where jet planes fly the most, there is the most aerial
pollution from carbon dioxide, and the most harmful climatic changes.
There is a way out, a marvellous way out. That is, to develop a new kind of
engine, the Internal Force Engine, based upon my new and correct physics.
That will make possible not just travel on Earth much faster and safer, but
also non-polluting. Yes, and travel to the Moon will be only a matter of
hours! And from there, to the rest of the universe.
I do hope the young at least will listen...
Fight the Garg...the Garg...the Abominable Garg!
Arindam Banerjee.
Hampton Park, Australia.
"James Fenimore" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b304ac05-c215-49ee...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> "India challenges Western data linking climate change, Himalayan melt"
>
> By Rama Lakshmi
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Sunday, November 22, 2009
>
>
>
> NEW DELHI -- As countries around the world prepare to flex their
> negotiating muscles at next month's climate-change summit in
> Copenhagen, India has begun to question the Western model of computing
> global warming statistics.
>
> Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a report last week that
> says there is no conclusive evidence that climate change has caused
> the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The report says that not all of
> the glaciers are receding at alarming rates and that a few are even
> advancing.
>
> The report, an analysis of data from the past four decades, is part of
> India's efforts to produce a body of indigenous research assessments
> on the subject.
>
> "So far, we have been depending on research conducted by the West on
> what is happening to our glaciers and environment," he said after
> releasing the report, which was prepared by a former scientist with
> the Geological Survey of India and included a disclaimer that it did
> not necessarily reflect the government's view.
>
> "There is an urgent need to have our own studies by our scientists,"
> he said.
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body, has said
> that the Himalayan glaciers are receding "faster than in any other
> part of the world" and are likely to disappear by 2035 if current
> rates of depletion continue. The panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri,
> dismissed the Indian report as "schoolboy science" that has yet to be
> authenticated by peer review, news services reported.
>
> Ramesh has said that much of the information derived from Western
> sources is "biased." He announced that India would set up 15 new
> weather stations to study long-term temperature data and would work
> with the Indian Space Research Organization for satellite mapping of
> glaciers.
>
> But many Indian environmentalists said they were confused by the
> report and the timing of its release, just weeks before the global
> climate meeting.
>
> "Climate change is an intensely political matter, and the science is
> contentious. It is very important that Indian scientific institutions
> get their act together. Local changes cannot always be caught by
> global scientific models," said Sunita Narain, director of New Delhi's
> Center for Science and Environment. "But I am unable to understand why
> the minister released the glacier report now. And if it is not climate
> change that is causing the glaciers to recede, then what is causing
> it?"
>
> The report does not answer that question. However, it says the
> Himalayan glaciers do not exhibit "an abnormal annual retreat of the
> order that some glaciers in Alaska and Greenland" are reported to have
> shown.
>
> In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, which seeks to develop a
> framework to slow global warming, India has said that the heaviest
> burden should fall on the nations that caused the problem and can
> afford the changes.
>
> India, which has become the world's fifth-largest producer of
> greenhouse gases in recent years, has offered modest domestic goals
> for emission cuts. The efforts would not be open to international
> verification.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?st=Rama%20%20Lakshmi&
Cwatters
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:UMnOm.56854$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> The reason why Indian glaciers are not melting
India may deny it's due to global warming but even they admit they are
melting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/earth/17glacier.html
Quote: "A recent study by the Indian Space Research Organization, using
satellite imaging to gauge the changes to 466 glaciers, has found more than
a 20 percent reduction in size from 1962 to 2001".
Arindam Banerjee
"Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:CZKdnefMjvbpNJfW...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:UMnOm.56854$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> The reason why Indian glaciers are not melting
>
> India may deny it's due to global warming but even they admit they are
> melting...
A contradictory statement! Could be, the westernised Indian scientists are
following the western line of thought and the genuine Indian scientists,
depending upon facts and honesty, are stating a contrary opinon.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/earth/17glacier.html
> Quote: "A recent study by the Indian Space Research Organization, using
> satellite imaging to gauge the changes to 466 glaciers, has found more
> than a 20 percent reduction in size from 1962 to 2001".
Proves nothing. Any statement can be made in Usenet, any scientist or
scientific organisation could be corrupt... When the whole scientific
establishment being fully einsteinian is thus corrupt to the core, why
should they be given more credibility than politicians or fanciful
novelists? Why should their opinion have more worth than those of sexy
celebrities?
It may well be that the Himalayan glaciers are melting more than usual, but
the point is that they are not melting as fast as those in Europe or USA,
where the stratosphere is far more polluted from the carbon dioxide formed
by the engines of high flying jet planes. While I thank you for answering
to my post, I also note that you have overlooked my main point.
There seems to be a difference in opinion regarding the icy state of
Antarctica (over which I suppose there are comparatively few jet plane
flights). According to some studies, there is more ice forming there than
before. According to another, there is less ice forming there. When such
simple statements are made, with no effort made to show exactly how those
conclusions are formed, there is no longer any science involved. Only
politics and dogma, with all sorts of parasites trying their best to grab
public moneys.
If it is conclusively shown that the ice on Antarctica is not melting, then
there is no such thing as GLOBAL warming. There is now only LOCAL warming,
caused by more intense pollution of the stratosphere in those areas, with
carbon dioxide. Of course, global warming will happen when jet planes fly
everywhere with equal pollution; trees everywhere are cut down; more carbon
dioxide pumped out on earth... This is unfortunately the undisguised action
path of the abominable Garg, currently ruling the planet.
Take NZ for instance - they still have glaciers there, although they have
been receding. When we correlate their rate of decrease with the amount of
pollution in the stratosphere, we will get a factor, and see how it
correlates with similar measurements around Alaska, Greenland, etc.
The political conclusion is: if a third world country does burn carbon, but
creates greenery around to absorb the carbon dioxide, then it should not be
bound by carbon laws. Carbon dioxide on earth is produced mainly by the
Middle East, as they have no greenery to absorb the horrible flames they
produce from their refineries. It is the unabsorbed carbon dioxide from
such refineries that goes up with the winds to the higher altitudes, and
thus cause global warming along with of course the waste from the polluting
jet engines. Countries like India that need to be technologically
developed, should not be arm-twisted on spurious environmental grounds, and
for basically political reasons.
Of course it is bad to produce more carbon dioxide than necessary - so the
best solution is to use hydrogen as fuel. The Hydrogen Transmission
Network, as a far cheaper, greener, better alternative to high voltage
transmission will make this possible.
Arindam Banerjee
Hampton Park, Australia.
Cwatters
> It may well be that the Himalayan glaciers are melting more than usual,
but
> the point is that they are not melting as fast as those in Europe or USA,
I agree but it seems the prime minister of Nepal doesn't ...
September 1 2009
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08c1b2f0-96f8-11de-9c24-00144feabdc0.html
"Speaking at a two-day Himalayan climate change conference in Kathmandu,
Madhav Kumar, Nepal�s prime minister, said: "The Himalayan glaciers are
retreating faster than any other glaciers in the world as the temperature is
increasing."
> I also note that you have overlooked my main point.
I don't agree with your assertion that it's all down to C02 produced by
aircraft. That is quickly dispersed around the world by the jet stream and
weather. There are plenty of examples of global transport...Sand from the
Sahara desert turns up thousands of miles away including in England,
radiation from Chernobyl travelled to China and Canada. Sulphur from English
coal fired power stations caused acid rain across Europe etc.
But you do have a point about pollution. Pollution makes snow and ice dirty
which causes it to absorb more sunlight and reflect less heat back into
space.
> If it is conclusively shown that the ice on Antarctica is not melting,
Sadly it's already been conclusively shown that it is melting. Today's
news...
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/antarctic-ice-melting-10-faster-than-thought-3178553
Quote: ..."new research shows the Antarctic's eastern ice sheet, long
thought to be unaffected by climate change, is melting 10% faster than it
can produce ice".
> the best solution is to use hydrogen as fuel
The problem is that Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's better to think of
hydrogen as a battery that needs another source of energy to charge.
Currently we can't make lots of hydrogen without using another fuel that
does release C02.
Personally I'd like to see research on fusion stepped up. We need an Apollo
or Manhattan like approach to get it done. I'd also like to see more public
money going into research into Photovoltaic cells, particularly roll to roll
manufacturing processes that allow them to be manufactured continuously
rather than in batches.
Arindam Banerjee
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:sVEOm.57037$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > It may well be that the Himalayan glaciers are melting more than usual,
> but
>
> > the point is that they are not melting as fast as those in Europe or USA,
>
> I agree but it seems the prime minister of Nepal doesn't ...
>
> September 1 2009
>
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08c1b2f0-96f8-11de-9c24-00144feabdc0.html
>
> "Speaking at a two-day Himalayan climate change conference in Kathmandu,
> Madhav Kumar, Nepal’s prime minister, said: "The Himalayan glaciers are
> retreating faster than any other glaciers in the world as the temperature is
> increasing."
Are we going to believe in politicians now? This matter is far too
important to be decided by the statement of some politician. I am not
saying that he is wrong, though. Glaciers may be retreating in Nepal
and Alaska, but we have to see the true causes, and one way is to
measure the rates of retreat and match them with the quantity of
carbon dioxide in the local region. We have Indian scientists on the
field making a point, which is contrary to the point made by Western
scientists who evidently want the facts to suit their pet theories.
To give another example - the Western scientists have been saying that
Bangladesh will be inundated by rising sea-waters. So the land will
shrink. But the Bangladeshi scientists have not seen anything of
this, over the last ten years. If anything, the land area has
increased as a result of continuous silting. The point is that if
thirdworld scientists blindly believe whatever they hear from the
firstworld scientists, they will lead their nations into dire
trouble.
To quote Sherlock Holmes: Facts first, theories afterwards. To doctor
facts (ignore some, twist some) to suit pet theories, is the greatest
villainy a scientist can do. No engineer can follow such corrupt
scientists. The pity is that the world is not run by engineers, even
though engineers have made the modern world.
> > I also note that you have overlooked my main point.
>
> I don't agree with your assertion that it's all down to C02 produced by
> aircraft.
Let us see what points you make.
>That is quickly dispersed around the world by the jet stream and
> weather.
The point is density/concentration of pollution. How much of it (the
carbon dioxide) produced in a region stays in or near the region. Of
course the Carbon Dioxide will get dispersed, but it will not get
dispersed immediately. There will be varying concentrations, and the
concentration will be most at and around the places where the
pollution was created the most. Thus since aeroplanes fly less over
the Himalayas, there will be less pollution over the Himalayas - what
their is will be from the diffusion from the areas where the pollution
was the highest. Always, at the place where the source of pollution
is, the pollution density will be the highest.
There are plenty of examples of global transport...Sand from the
> Sahara desert turns up thousands of miles away including in England,
> radiation from Chernobyl travelled to China and Canada. Sulphur from English
> coal fired power stations caused acid rain across Europe etc.
Fair enough. Traces will be found. Surely you are not trying to make
the point that the concentration of sand (measured by mass of Sahara
sand per unit area) from the Sahara found in England is anywhere near
the density of Sahara sound found in the Sahara. I have no doubt that
a fair amount of carbon dioxide produced by jet planes flying over
Alaska finds its way over the Himalayas, and thus causes glacier
retreat. Now we compare the rates, on a factual basis, for glacier
retreats in the Himalayas and in Alaska. Here there is a problem.
The rates in Alaska are beyond controversy, while those in the
Himalayas certainly are controversial.
> But you do have a point about pollution. Pollution makes snow and ice dirty
> which causes it to absorb more sunlight and reflect less heat back into
> space.
At least we agree on something. This is a beginning. I hope you will
realise that jet planes discharging carbon dioxide into the
stratosphere is most probably the main culprit behind "global"
warming. Now we should we should compare how much one ton of CO2
emitted by jet planes into the stratoshpere is equivalent to how many
tons of CO2 produced on Earth, that is not absorbed by greenery. That
will be a proper basis for blame assignment. So CO2 generation in
areas sans greenery will be far more punished than CO2 generation
within greenery.
> > If it is conclusively shown that the ice on Antarctica is not melting,
>
> Sadly it's already been conclusively shown that it is melting. Today's
> news...
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/antarctic-ice-melting-10-faster-than-tho...
>
> Quote: ..."new research shows the Antarctic's eastern ice sheet, long
> thought to be unaffected by climate change, is melting 10% faster than it
> can produce ice".
>
> > the best solution is to use hydrogen as fuel
>
> The problem is that Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's better to think of
> hydrogen as a battery that needs another source of energy to charge.
> Currently we can't make lots of hydrogen without using another fuel that
> does release C02.
Hydrogen as a fuel is an energy source all right. Hydrogen can be
created from electrolysis and many other processes - chemical (put
steam over heated coal to make coal gas which contain Hydrogen) and
even from biological methods. A lot of work has been done on this.
Sunlight and seawater will create hydrogen - the sunlight will be
converted to electricity with solar cells, and seawater will be
electolysed with that electricity to make hydrogen. Brackish water
may be used, and other alternative energy sources may be used to
create the electricity.
The main problem has been that Hydrogen is difficult to store.
However, the Hydrogen Transmission Network (my invention) will
overcome this. A flow process will replace the store and carry
process, the normal one for fuels. My partner Ilya Shambat and I are
now creating a website for this. We have already talked to
politicians here, and bureaucrats. They have seemed enthusiastic.
Now we need to make ourselves clear to the public, how this invention
will solve both energy and water issues for the planet for all time -
make the world a green, happy, lively place.
> Personally I'd like to see research on fusion stepped up. We need an Apollo
> or Manhattan like approach to get it done. I'd also like to see more public
> money going into research into Photovoltaic cells, particularly roll to roll
> manufacturing processes that allow them to be manufactured continuously
> rather than in batches.
Research on fusion will be useless, for it has already been done for
60 years without success. Mainly this is so because the theory for
fusion (e=mcc stuff) is totally wrong. Much better to go in for the
Hydrogen Transmission Network, mate. And after that, the Internal
Force Engine... but that is another story!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
AB: I meant Sahara SAND, not Sahara sound! Sorry for this error.