Kevin does make it easy.


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Don't you get tired of shooting fish in a barrel?

"John H." wrote in message
...
Why do you insist on spoiling the fun??



On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:08 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my
Phd @
Diploma Mill .com wrote:

:...
Kevin,

Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns
how
the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of
the
time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said
the
grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered
Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn
how
to read before you post links.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of
30%
from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions
this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a
devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30%
less,
reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from
automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more
sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around
the
world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by
about
0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate
system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in
terms
of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield
statistically
negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change.
There
is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming
reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.






-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously
observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on
future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "



Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of
Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence
for
you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in
global
temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in
the
air.....hmmmm......


Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least
the
hard
sciences, on board?

Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the
party
of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html

http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/...s/e_grnhse.htm

http://www.science.gmu.edu/~zli/ghe.html

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jones/tm...up11/home.html

http://www.main-vision.com/richard/G...e%20effect.htm

http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/global-warming.html

If you need more, just let me know!






--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes