"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:



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.




According to you, but then I actually listen to the scientists who know
about CO2.

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"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


Thank you! I'd rather choose to have my head in the sand than up my ass.

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




According to you, but then I actually listen to the scientists who know
about CO2.


Which ones? Where are their specific findings printed. What are those
references. Share so that we can all see what YOU"RE reading?

Inquiring minds and peer reviewers want to know!!

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


Thank you! I'd rather choose to have my head in the sand than up my ass.



Apparently, you have a lot of experience with both!

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

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




According to you, but then I actually listen to the scientists who know
about CO2.


Which ones? Where are their specific findings printed. What are those
references. Share so that we can all see what YOU"RE reading?

Inquiring minds and peer reviewers want to know!!




The good ones of course!

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

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



According to you, but then I actually listen to the scientists who know
about CO2.

Which ones? Where are their specific findings printed. What are those
references. Share so that we can all see what YOU"RE reading?

Inquiring minds and peer reviewers want to know!!




The good ones of course!


So, where are your references? Or does the credibility of your
statements drop to zero?

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



According to you, but then I actually listen to the scientists who know
about CO2.

Which ones? Where are their specific findings printed. What are those
references. Share so that we can all see what YOU"RE reading?

Inquiring minds and peer reviewers want to know!!




The good ones of course!


So, where are your references? Or does the credibility of your statements
drop to zero?




That's better than negative numbers... g


--
"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

"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