Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Re: The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
3 views
Skip to first unread message
hanson
May 6, 2013, 4:37:55 PM5/6/13
to
ahahahahaha... ahahaha...AHAHAHA... Good one! by
>
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> who wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 06 May 2013 07:32:26 -0500) it happened
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in
<Uo2dndeLn65HPxrM...@giganews.com>:
>On 5/6/13 1:41 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> BTW I live next to the sea,
>> with nuclear power getting the salt out is EASY.
>
Sam Wormley wrote:
> You've got it made in the shade if somebody will take the salt
> out of the water for you, Jan.
Jan Panteltje wrote:
I have argued all my life for nuclear power.
Now the green idiots close nuclear plant after nuclear plant.
Maybe it is fear of 'radiation', they obviously
do not care about the hundreds of coal miners that die every year to
keep the greeny's feet warm, or their head a bit cooler.
In Japan exactly ONE person died of radiation after that earthquake
that flattened their nuclear plant.
We make silly spacecraft that burn up atmosphere and hardly get to orbit,
while since the early sixties NASA has the plans for nuclear propulsion,
but 'nuclear' scares the clueless, yet they sit in its shine to get a tan.
They need more and more money to support their green politician's ideas,
and tax people and brainwash the youth with their drivel.
They are scientific illiterate, but supported by a whole industry that
makes money of them by selling them useless 'green' stuff and instruments
to test the greeniness of their wold.
They pester Japanese whale fishers, oil drillers, nuclear plant operators,
yet they drive polluting cars, eat no less fish, and when it is cold
use the nuclear generated electricity.
MIC (Military Industrial Complex)
SIC (Scientific Industrial Complex)
EIC (Environmental(ly ill) Industrial Complex)
Your papers are crap, you agenda is obvious, you lose in the end
when energy is needed on the spot at that moment.
As to nuclear, little while ago I checked my tritium decay experiment,
just a few more weeks then I have one year of data..
Good design, worked for a year without a hitch, had no problem
with 2 or 3 (one several hours) power failures,
I designed it, am happy about that, designing other stuff now, many
projects,
The difference is that my stuff HAS to work, as it is real stuff used by
real people, who WILL complain if it does not do what they want,
On the other side is the free fantasy of the green politicians who
NEVER can be held responsible for ANY stupid - insane- retarded -
shortsighted - idiotic decision they make, took, and will take,
voted into power by the same clueless
AND YOU ARE THEIR INSTRUMENT
Learn to analyze make your own analysis, it is a LOT harder than
parroting, really, and you may even fail sometimes, BUT it is more fun.
>
>
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> who wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 06 May 2013 07:32:26 -0500) it happened
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in
<Uo2dndeLn65HPxrM...@giganews.com>:
>On 5/6/13 1:41 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> BTW I live next to the sea,
>> with nuclear power getting the salt out is EASY.
>
Sam Wormley wrote:
> You've got it made in the shade if somebody will take the salt
> out of the water for you, Jan.
Jan Panteltje wrote:
I have argued all my life for nuclear power.
Now the green idiots close nuclear plant after nuclear plant.
Maybe it is fear of 'radiation', they obviously
do not care about the hundreds of coal miners that die every year to
keep the greeny's feet warm, or their head a bit cooler.
In Japan exactly ONE person died of radiation after that earthquake
that flattened their nuclear plant.
We make silly spacecraft that burn up atmosphere and hardly get to orbit,
while since the early sixties NASA has the plans for nuclear propulsion,
but 'nuclear' scares the clueless, yet they sit in its shine to get a tan.
They need more and more money to support their green politician's ideas,
and tax people and brainwash the youth with their drivel.
They are scientific illiterate, but supported by a whole industry that
makes money of them by selling them useless 'green' stuff and instruments
to test the greeniness of their wold.
They pester Japanese whale fishers, oil drillers, nuclear plant operators,
yet they drive polluting cars, eat no less fish, and when it is cold
use the nuclear generated electricity.
MIC (Military Industrial Complex)
SIC (Scientific Industrial Complex)
EIC (Environmental(ly ill) Industrial Complex)
Your papers are crap, you agenda is obvious, you lose in the end
when energy is needed on the spot at that moment.
As to nuclear, little while ago I checked my tritium decay experiment,
just a few more weeks then I have one year of data..
Good design, worked for a year without a hitch, had no problem
with 2 or 3 (one several hours) power failures,
I designed it, am happy about that, designing other stuff now, many
projects,
The difference is that my stuff HAS to work, as it is real stuff used by
real people, who WILL complain if it does not do what they want,
On the other side is the free fantasy of the green politicians who
NEVER can be held responsible for ANY stupid - insane- retarded -
shortsighted - idiotic decision they make, took, and will take,
voted into power by the same clueless
AND YOU ARE THEIR INSTRUMENT
Learn to analyze make your own analysis, it is a LOT harder than
parroting, really, and you may even fail sometimes, BUT it is more fun.
>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 8, 2013, 12:14:26 AM5/8/13
to
what is the experiment to do?
yes, the quake (and tsunami) were much worse, and
hte media never take issue with the bogus LNT paradigm,
linear no-threshold, although huge studies have proved this.
now, as for the "last time," that would
have been at the end of the prior interglacial, as shown
in the old Shackleton et al study of seabed cores;
there is even a clinical name for this process:
retrogressive vegetational succession. see G.Woillard,
Science or Nature, "Abrupt end of the Eemian interglacial,
*sensu strictu*.
yes, the quake (and tsunami) were much worse, and
hte media never take issue with the bogus LNT paradigm,
linear no-threshold, although huge studies have proved this.
now, as for the "last time," that would
have been at the end of the prior interglacial, as shown
in the old Shackleton et al study of seabed cores;
there is even a clinical name for this process:
retrogressive vegetational succession. see G.Woillard,
Science or Nature, "Abrupt end of the Eemian interglacial,
*sensu strictu*.
Sleepalot
May 8, 2013, 10:14:32 PM5/8/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>what is the experiment to do?
>
>yes, the quake (and tsunami) were much worse, and
>hte media never take issue with the bogus LNT paradigm,
>linear no-threshold, although huge studies have proved this.
The IAEC (or whatever it is) _has_ abandoned the LNT paradigm,
>what is the experiment to do?
>
>yes, the quake (and tsunami) were much worse, and
>hte media never take issue with the bogus LNT paradigm,
>linear no-threshold, although huge studies have proved this.
fairly recently.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2013, 12:30:52 AM5/9/13
to
well, hey!
Sleepalot
May 9, 2013, 11:49:13 AM5/9/13
to
"IAEA abandons Linear no threshold model"
and
"UN Atomic Agency abandons Linear no threshold model"
Get no results.
Apparently no Atomic Agency ever mentioned the LNT model
in a news item!
T. Keating
May 10, 2013, 1:06:28 AM5/10/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 03:14:32 +0100, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>what is the experiment to do?
>>
>>yes, the quake (and tsunami) were much worse, and
>>hte media never take issue with the bogus LNT paradigm,
>>linear no-threshold, although huge studies have proved this.
>
>The IAEC (or whatever it is) _has_ abandoned the LNT paradigm,
>fairly recently.
Just call them "psychopaths r us"..
>1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>what is the experiment to do?
>>
>>yes, the quake (and tsunami) were much worse, and
>>hte media never take issue with the bogus LNT paradigm,
>>linear no-threshold, although huge studies have proved this.
>
>The IAEC (or whatever it is) _has_ abandoned the LNT paradigm,
>fairly recently.
T. Keating
May 10, 2013, 1:35:41 AM5/10/13
to
On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:37:55 -0700, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>ahahahahaha... ahahaha...AHAHAHA... Good one! by
>>
>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> who wrote:
>
> On a sunny day (Mon, 06 May 2013 07:32:26 -0500) it happened
>Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in
><Uo2dndeLn65HPxrM...@giganews.com>:
>
>>On 5/6/13 1:41 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> BTW I live next to the sea,
>>> with nuclear power getting the salt out is EASY.
>>
>Sam Wormley wrote:
>> You've got it made in the shade if somebody will take the salt
>> out of the water for you, Jan.
>
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>I have argued all my life for nuclear power.
>Now the green idiots close nuclear plant after nuclear plant.
>Maybe it is fear of 'radiation', they obviously
>do not care about the hundreds of coal miners that die every year to
>keep the greeny's feet warm, or their head a bit cooler.
>
>In Japan exactly ONE person died of radiation after that earthquake
>that flattened their nuclear plant.
Huh?? Fuku.. is responsible for mass deaths.. 35% increase infant mortality in the
>ahahahahaha... ahahaha...AHAHAHA... Good one! by
>>
>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> who wrote:
>
> On a sunny day (Mon, 06 May 2013 07:32:26 -0500) it happened
>Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in
><Uo2dndeLn65HPxrM...@giganews.com>:
>
>>On 5/6/13 1:41 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> BTW I live next to the sea,
>>> with nuclear power getting the salt out is EASY.
>>
>Sam Wormley wrote:
>> You've got it made in the shade if somebody will take the salt
>> out of the water for you, Jan.
>
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>I have argued all my life for nuclear power.
>Now the green idiots close nuclear plant after nuclear plant.
>Maybe it is fear of 'radiation', they obviously
>do not care about the hundreds of coal miners that die every year to
>keep the greeny's feet warm, or their head a bit cooler.
>
>In Japan exactly ONE person died of radiation after that earthquake
>that flattened their nuclear plant.
Pacific northwest.. .
The fallout has wiped out whole populations avian hatchlings on the west coast of the
USA..
It's even Worse in Japan..
http://panokroko.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/japans-silent-spring/
Increased radioactive exposure kills by increasing the probability of premature death and
disability..
I have one word to describe your behavior.. "psychopath".. so fuck off..
Jan Panteltje
May 10, 2013, 3:04:33 AM5/10/13
to
On a sunny day (Fri, 10 May 2013 01:35:41 -0400) it happened T. Keating
<tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in <311po89csvsjqmu04...@4ax.com>:
Actually increased radiation also increases different mutations,
something desperately needed as we need a clever one because there are too many severe retarded imbeciles
of all the fucking you are doing, I mean look at it: You are the result of that,
as your below (level) posting clearly shows to any intelligent reader.
WE NEED THOSE MUTATIONS, ONE GENIUS CAN SAVE HUMANITY BY GETTING US CHEAP fusion ENERGY.
I know you green idiots want every body to be a clone of your own illiterate unscientific paranoia green oxidized ideas,
but that just makes lemmings.
Life on earth evolved with much higher radiation levels, survived much higher radiation bursts,
temperature changes, humidity changes, atmospheric composition changes then you want to
and are mentally able to admit.
And the result is US, (well not you OK, you as a negative mutation example), we who see the relativity (not Einstein's) of your green drivel
and want a reliable lasting energy source.
>I have one word to describe your behavior.. "psychopath".. so fuck off..
Here is that f*cking thing again, your mind is blinded by it, sure fuck all you want,
although with you as mother (old women probably) of all them mutations it will be more like the Neandertalers, destined to be replaced
by a more DARING and AGGRESSIVE MENTALLY BETTER EQUIPPED species, like humans.
Against us humans you have no chance WHATSOEVER.
<tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in <311po89csvsjqmu04...@4ax.com>:
something desperately needed as we need a clever one because there are too many severe retarded imbeciles
of all the fucking you are doing, I mean look at it: You are the result of that,
as your below (level) posting clearly shows to any intelligent reader.
WE NEED THOSE MUTATIONS, ONE GENIUS CAN SAVE HUMANITY BY GETTING US CHEAP fusion ENERGY.
I know you green idiots want every body to be a clone of your own illiterate unscientific paranoia green oxidized ideas,
but that just makes lemmings.
Life on earth evolved with much higher radiation levels, survived much higher radiation bursts,
temperature changes, humidity changes, atmospheric composition changes then you want to
and are mentally able to admit.
And the result is US, (well not you OK, you as a negative mutation example), we who see the relativity (not Einstein's) of your green drivel
and want a reliable lasting energy source.
>I have one word to describe your behavior.. "psychopath".. so fuck off..
although with you as mother (old women probably) of all them mutations it will be more like the Neandertalers, destined to be replaced
by a more DARING and AGGRESSIVE MENTALLY BETTER EQUIPPED species, like humans.
Against us humans you have no chance WHATSOEVER.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 10, 2013, 6:02:18 PM5/10/13
to
LNT is the grotesque assumption that a)
all exposures are cumulative and b)
un healthful, but this was totally disproven
with respect to radiation, and is obviously false
w.r.t. molybdenum;
keyword, hormesis.
all exposures are cumulative and b)
un healthful, but this was totally disproven
with respect to radiation, and is obviously false
w.r.t. molybdenum;
keyword, hormesis.
josephus
May 11, 2013, 12:15:43 PM5/11/13
to
I have a similar one for NOAA that stops in 2012
they look the same.
now you tell us why they all do this.
jjosephus
>
-0.0005994| 0.0005981| 0.0017956|
--------------------------------------------------------
2002 40 | . %|
2000 35 | . % |
1998 30 | . % |
1996 26 | . % |
1994 26 | . + * |
1992 21 | +.* |
1990 18 | + * . |
1988 11 | * + . |
1986 9 | *+ . |
1984 9 | +* . |
1982 6 | % . |
1980 3 | *+ . |
1978 4 | + * . |
1976 4 | + * . |
1974 2 | +* . |
1972 1 | % . |
1970 1 | % . |
1968 1 | % . |
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 27, 2013, 3:28:55 PM5/27/13
to
you missed the "point;"
huge "longitudinal studies" have shown that "hormesis" is valid,
and "linear no-threshold" is not.
huge "longitudinal studies" have shown that "hormesis" is valid,
and "linear no-threshold" is not.
0 new messages