"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:55:36 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:24:18 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote:


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


If you need more, just let me know!

That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it?

LOL!!

Di-hydrogen mono-oxide strikes again.


Life's a bitch when one posts without reading!

--
John H.

Life's a bitch when, like you, you don't understand what you are
reading. You see, dummy, it isn't the AMOUNT of any given substance in
the air, it is the amount of UV penetration that the substance does and
doesn't allow. So, again, you are WRONG....sorry, do some more study on
the subject.
\

Let me post a quote from your stated site. "vapor in the greenhouse
system,
carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as
20-fold."


Now, see if you can find the 'UV penetration' stuff on that site, 'cause
that's
what he was *really* talking about.

No wonder Bush won, Kevin, et al, probably didn't read the ballot and
voted for
him.

--
John H.



No, he won *despite* the fact that folks who did not read the ballot or
understand what was at stake did not vote for him.

Sort of like issues 2-5 in Ohio..............a resounding defeat of the
issues yet we had dummies voting *for* them because, according to the
interviews, they did not understand what the issues said or were all about.