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.

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.

Capt. JG wrote:
"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.


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is
that the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the
cause is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by
anyone with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

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
...
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

"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

"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

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


Puhleeeeeezze...

I've worked in the standards world for over 15 years (ANSI and ISO).
Consensus means that everyone has found common ground for agreement. In
this case, no consensus has been reached. The only common ground is that
the climate seems to be in a warming trend. Speculation as to the cause
is all over the map and hardly can be classified as "consensus" by anyone
with a remote understanding of the meaning of the word.

Period.

At this point, it doesn't even seem that the majority of the scientific
community even agrees that GW is man-made.

Uhhuh... well, according to you I guess.

--
"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.

Capt. JG wrote:



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


What?? Find one reference I've made to fuel costs.

And I'm NOT the one claiming that man has dumped the most CO2 into the
air, you are. And I'm asking you to provide your numbers and the
reference to that research.

So the amount of your references supporting your position is directly
proportional to your credibility.