* Joe wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:08 AM:

Hey Jeff who the f*%k are you talking too? What are you so full of
hatred?

I never said liberals are vandels, they are stupid jerks that can't
read who posted this crap but not vandels in general.

Sorry Joe, I humbly apologize. I meant Bart of course - I don't know
why I momentarily thought it was you. I guess I'm as guilty as the
next guy of making blanket associations.

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.

Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of
the earth?

Capt. JG wrote:



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.


And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism?
Even though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors
to global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that
because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a
fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product
of increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming
of the earth?


The data shows CO2 levels rising as a CONSEQUENCE of global warming.
Not the other way around.


http://technocrat.net/d/2007/5/6/19282

and:

http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/05/fact_and_theory.html

and:

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

"Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate
conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach
in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News
soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies,
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006.
The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."



So, if higher levels of CO2 are an effect rather than a cause is it
possible that the sun cycles might have more to do with climate change
than humans? I think so.



Wilbur Hubbard

"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

"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

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of the
earth?



Well, gee, we now have how many millions of cars, trucks, factories, etc.
pumping carbon into the atmosphere... no way *they* could be responsible..

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

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



Far, far more. They're very good at... that and generating fear.


And the current fear and panic over GW is a product of conservatism? Even
though there is no firm foundation for GW being caused by man?




It's a justified fear, and I don't see any panic. Just strong concern. There
is consensus that it is caused by man even if you don't want to believe it.

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

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."

Hmm, C02 concentration is rising *now*, temperature is rising *now*, not
"a few hundred to a few thousand years" apart. That doesn't mesh with
the hypothesis you are propounding.

I wonder if The Wisconsin Energy Cooperative has an agenda and if so
what direction it might lean?

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----