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?

"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

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 ----

Martin Baxter wrote:
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.


Temperatures have been rising for about 18,000 years with a few minor
blips.


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

Cheers
Marty


I wonder whether there are those who would profit from GW research $$
that have an agenda to push.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Martin Baxter wrote:
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.


Temperatures have been rising for about 18,000 years with a few minor
blips.


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

Cheers
Marty


I wonder whether there are those who would profit from GW research $$ that
have an agenda to push.


Big oil is certainly profiting from GW research! Better them than people who
care about the environment!

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

Capt. JG wrote:


Big oil is certainly profiting from GW research! Better them than people who
care about the environment!


Glad to see you've taken up the lemming's run.

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


Big oil is certainly profiting from GW research! Better them than people
who care about the environment!


Glad to see you've taken up the lemming's run.



I suppose that's slightly better than the ostrich effect in which you seem
quite profient. g

--
"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

Capt. JG wrote:
"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..


What are the numbers? How much does man contribute relative to natural
causes. Don't just irrationally bitch and whine. Show the numbers.

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


What are the numbers? How much does man contribute relative to natural
causes. Don't just irrationally bitch and whine. Show the numbers.



Do your own research... seems like you're the one bitchin about having to
pay a bit more for fuel.

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