"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course,
picks
the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the
majority of
the models show the average increase in temperature following a very
steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight
increase in
global temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X
as
much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years
are you
not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now.

Even if this were true (it's not --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png) an
increase in atmospheric CO2 is constantly presented, by certain
people, as a "bad thing." CO2 is an essential link for all life on
this planet. More CO2 available in the air, and slightly warmer
temperatures, is a good thing.


Rather than worry about CO2 people should be more worried about O2. I
read in one article where in times past the percentage of oxygen in the
air has ranged between 15% to 25%. Today it is around 21% if I recall
correctly. When it was 25 percent fires popped up constantly and burned
out of control. Even wet stuff would burn. The article said giant
animals and insects like dragon flies with a 28" wing span thrived
because of the rich oxygen content. One of the big die-offs occurred
when the O2 levels got down around 15%. Animals just couldn't adapt fast
enough and pretty much suffocated to death.

And today we have short-sighted morons the likes of Al Gore and his
minions worried to death about an insignificant raise in the CO2 levels.
Somebody needs to slap the **** out of all of them. Give them something
real to worry about.

Wilbur Hubbard