"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with
hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily
accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do
yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I
did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive
evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take a
wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do what I
can to not pollute.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to
GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take
a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do
what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive evidence,
there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive. The smartest
people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either bandwagon,
simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only to believe
what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth. Your
objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm a
bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of global
pollution. GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but since all the
rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have been swept aside.
While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and getting all the lipservice
of the various media, the planet is up to its ears in refuse, polluted water
and air, and landfills. There is an estimated 50 billion metric tons of
refuse and garbage being dumped in the world's oceans annually, and you guys
are crowing about something that most likely will be laughed at 20 years
from now. Time will likely prove Al Gore and his minions to be buffoons at
best, and idiots who farted around while the planet was destroyed at worst.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor"
to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive
evidence, there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive. The
smartest people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either
bandwagon, simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only
to believe what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth.
Your objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus
cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm a
bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of global
pollution. GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but since all the
rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have been swept
aside. While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and getting all the
lipservice of the various media, the planet is up to its ears in refuse,
polluted water and air, and landfills. There is an estimated 50 billion
metric tons of refuse and garbage being dumped in the world's oceans
annually, and you guys are crowing about something that most likely will
be laughed at 20 years from now. Time will likely prove Al Gore and his
minions to be buffoons at best, and idiots who farted around while the
planet was destroyed at worst.

Max



You just said the evidence isn't definitive. Now you're saying that man's
involvement is "minor at best." Which is it? You're very, very confused it
seems. Keep pumping those toxins into the environment and see what happens.
Tip: environment includes the air.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in
this issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of
the issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither
side has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime
contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive
evidence, there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive.
The smartest people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either
bandwagon, simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only
to believe what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth.
Your objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus
cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm
a bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of
global pollution. *****GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but
since all the rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have
been swept aside.***** While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and
getting all the lipservice of the various media, the planet is up to its
ears in refuse, polluted water and air, and landfills. There is an
estimated 50 billion metric tons of refuse and garbage being dumped in
the world's oceans annually, and you guys are crowing about something
that most likely will be laughed at 20 years from now. Time will likely
prove Al Gore and his minions to be buffoons at best, and idiots who
farted around while the planet was destroyed at worst.

Max



You just said the evidence isn't definitive. Now you're saying that man's
involvement is "minor at best." Which is it? You're very, very confused it
seems.

Reading 101 for the comprehensionally challenged: See the above
**highlighted** passage in my response. Note the word "likely." "Likely"
doesn't mean "definitive." It means likely. End of lesson.

Keep pumping those toxins into the environment and see what happens. Tip:
environment includes the air.

GW isn't about air pollution. It doesn't even address the issue. It only
postulates (see, not definitive) that the Earth is warming due to
human-induced co2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere. No lipservice is
given to the air we breathe. To the contrary, the whole GW evangelistic
movement is ignoring air pollution in favor of carbon neutrality. It
ignores nitrous oxides and a host of other man-made pollutants. It is a
distraction from the important issues of planetary pollution.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in
this issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of
the issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither
side has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime
contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess
we should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water
and take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think
I'll do what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive
evidence, there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive.
The smartest people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either
bandwagon, simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose
only to believe what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the
truth. Your objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a
bogus cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm
a bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of
global pollution. *****GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but
since all the rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have
been swept aside.***** While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and
getting all the lipservice of the various media, the planet is up to its
ears in refuse, polluted water and air, and landfills. There is an
estimated 50 billion metric tons of refuse and garbage being dumped in
the world's oceans annually, and you guys are crowing about something
that most likely will be laughed at 20 years from now. Time will likely
prove Al Gore and his minions to be buffoons at best, and idiots who
farted around while the planet was destroyed at worst.

Max



You just said the evidence isn't definitive. Now you're saying that man's
involvement is "minor at best." Which is it? You're very, very confused
it seems.

Reading 101 for the comprehensionally challenged: See the above
**highlighted** passage in my response. Note the word "likely." "Likely"
doesn't mean "definitive." It means likely. End of lesson.

Keep pumping those toxins into the environment and see what happens. Tip:
environment includes the air.

GW isn't about air pollution. It doesn't even address the issue. It only
postulates (see, not definitive) that the Earth is warming due to
human-induced co2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere. No lipservice is
given to the air we breathe. To the contrary, the whole GW evangelistic
movement is ignoring air pollution in favor of carbon neutrality. It
ignores nitrous oxides and a host of other man-made pollutants. It is a
distraction from the important issues of planetary pollution.

Max



It is definitive according to most scientists. Funny how GWB is now saying
we need to do something and the US should lead the way, and is distancing
himself from the head of NASA, all of whoms scientists are saying he should
resign because of what he said.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?
How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.
I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with
hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily
accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do
yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I
did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive
evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take a
wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do what I
can to not pollute.



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?
How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.
I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor"
to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do you
think this is net good?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do you
think this is net good?



No. But facts are facts. And you're relating something that is FACT to
something that is NOT FACT.

Can you see the difference?

Pumping CO2 into the air may not be a good thing, but there is not
proven relationship between CO2 levels and GW except as a product, not a
cause.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do
you think this is net good?



No. But facts are facts. And you're relating something that is FACT to
something that is NOT FACT.

Can you see the difference?

Pumping CO2 into the air may not be a good thing, but there is not proven
relationship between CO2 levels and GW except as a product, not a cause.


According to you. Well, I'm glad you think CO2 being injected into the air
in huge quantities "may" not be a good thing. That puts my mind at rest. g


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?
How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.
I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in
this issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of
the issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither
side has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime
contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do
you think this is net good?

GW is not about air pollution. Do you honestly believe it is? If so, you
aren't even paying attention to the GW preachers, like Al Gore, who are only
talking about global thermodynamics, not air, water, or land pollution.

Max