Wisconsin Obliterates Their Cold Records For The Date

7 Responses to Wisconsin Obliterates Their Cold Records For The Date

1. donald says:

   July 28, 2013 at 2:32 am

   Wow. Crushed them.

   Reply
2. omanuel says:

   July 28, 2013 at 4:12 am

   Steven,

   1. Events like these were anticipated by glorious leaders of the scientific community. That is why Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) became Global Climate Change.

   2. Do you have any idea why two other bright climate bloggers – E. M. Smith at Chiefio wordpress.com and Jeff Condon at Air Vent – are recently silent?

   3. Like you, they were bright enough to appreciate the message sent to the Space Science & Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives last week:

   https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Creator_Destroyer_Sustainer_of_Life.pdf

   With kind regards,
   – Oliver K. Manuel

   Reply
   • Richard T. Fowler says:

     July 28, 2013 at 10:54 am

     Oliver, I have a question for you, since I have thus far been unable to decode the answer from an inspection of your paper.

     When you write about neutron repulsion power, you are clearly suggesting that there is a lot more energy available in the nucleus of (just for example) a uranium atom than is publicly acknowledged by government. (And I know there are issues of political collusion across national and ideological lines. For the moment I’d like to focus on the physical side of this matter.)

     You have previously suggested (and presented some photos and eyewitness testimony in support of this) that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were observed to produced nuclear-energy-fed fires that would not extinguish for some extended period of time, and that the longevity and power of these fires was suppressed by government, thereby contributing to the condition wherein your nuclear-repulsion concept finds difficulty in gaining acceptance.

     Given the above, then, my question for you is as follows. Is it your contention that what we know as conventional uranium fission reactors are not actually using fission to produce energy? Or, is it, rather, that they use fission in somewhat the way we’ve been told, but that the reaction is dampened in some way so as to produce less energy than is actually available, while remaining within the bounds said to be possible by prevailing physics?

     Thank you.

     Richard

     Reply
     • omanuel says:

       July 29, 2013 at 5:20 am

       Richard asked, “Is it your contention that what we know as conventional uranium fission reactors are not actually using fission to produce energy? Or, is it, rather, that they use fission in somewhat the way we’ve been told, but that the reaction is dampened in some way so as to produce less energy than is actually available, while remaining within the bounds said to be possible by prevailing physics?”

       Fission is the result of neutron repulsion in the cores of heavy atoms like U or Pu.
       Fragmentation of stars and galaxies are probably powered by neutron repulsion.
       Radioactive nuclear waste is a concentrated form of energy that should be used.

       Reply
3. kim2ooo says:

   July 28, 2013 at 9:19 am

   Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

   Reply
4. Chewer says:

   July 29, 2013 at 5:30 am

   Cool news!

   Reply
5. Chewer says:

   July 29, 2013 at 5:31 am

   Apparently there is one old tree in upper Wisconsin that has unusual characteristics!

   Reply