"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?

More likely (there's that non-definitive word again, Jon) it's, at least in
part, a product of the deforestation of the planet. Woody and herbaceous
plants are the great scrubbers of co2. Without them, the accumulation of
co2 will rise. So far I haven't heard Jon mention one thing about
deforestation. Only about bad humans who produce co2. I'll bet he doesn't
realize that a significant percentage of the total quantity of co2 is
produced by respiration in animals, which includes humans. Perhaps we
should eradicate the planet of all animal life.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"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.

Only the ones saying what you want to hear, Jon. You totally ignore the
one's who don't. Hardly a scientific approach on your part.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"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.

This is your stock denial response. I'm surprised, however, that
Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, and Rove didn't make it in the stock response as
well.

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

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

"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

It is in part.

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"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.

Only the ones saying what you want to hear, Jon. You totally ignore the
one's who don't. Hardly a scientific approach on your part.

Max



Listen to the NASA scientists for a start.


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

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

"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?

More likely (there's that non-definitive word again, Jon) it's, at least
in part, a product of the deforestation of the planet. Woody and
herbaceous plants are the great scrubbers of co2. Without them, the
accumulation of co2 will rise. So far I haven't heard Jon mention one
thing about deforestation. Only about bad humans who produce co2. I'll
bet he doesn't realize that a significant percentage of the total quantity
of co2 is produced by respiration in animals, which includes humans.
Perhaps we should eradicate the planet of all animal life.

Max



That is certainly a problem. One of many things we're doing to harm
ourselves.


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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"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.

This is your stock denial response. I'm surprised, however, that
Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, and Rove didn't make it in the stock response
as well.

Max



But they made it into yours! Hooorah! Thanks!!


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

On May 30, 12:05 pm, "Maxprop" wrote:

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

I just started reading as a matter of fact. Pretty boring
so far. I hope I can finish it.

hey I'm not against protecting the environment, but
it is clear to me that the sun is the major factor, not man.

Cut greenhouse gases--fine. Eliminate them if you want,
it won't stop global warming if the sun's output doesn't
decline.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:19:54 GMT, Fuzzy Logic
wrote this crap:

"The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn,
the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left
33 of the hand-drawn swastikas."

Since when does vandals=liberals?

swastikas=nazis=socialists.




This post is 100% free of steroids