Went up to the boat today
 

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks
the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of
the models show the average increase in temperature following a very
steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in
global temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as
much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you
not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now.

Went up to the boat today
 

"mr.b" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course,
picks
the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the
majority of
the models show the average increase in temperature following a very
steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight
increase in
global temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X
as
much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are
you
not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now.


Three times as much, I think not.

Here is the present accepted percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere from:
http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html

VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values a

Water vapor 0 to 4%
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%

Note the term "variable." That means it's normal for the percentages to
change from time to time.


Carbon Dioxide 0.035% That's 35/100 of one percent. About 1/3 of one
percent.

So you are claiming 650,000 years ago that was only about 0.012%? 1)
prove it 2) prove that 650,000 years ago is the BENCHMARK figure
(keeping in mind that there's been life on earth for millions, if not
billions, of years.)

Can't do it? Surprise, surprise! Until you can prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt your argument is as impotent as you are.

Wilbur Hubbard

Went up to the boat today
 

"Peter Hendra" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:42:56 -0400, Gogarty
snip..
According to one report, *by 2040 the US will be only the 5th largest
economy behind Brazil
Russia and China - can't remember other one*.
snip

cheers
Peter


probably India

Went up to the boat today
 

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady
and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

You should read
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte...-testimony.pdf

I have much more shocking reputable sites for you once you have
digested this one. :-)



Eric Stevens

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

Went up to the boat today
 

"mr.b" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks
the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority
of
the models show the average increase in temperature following a very
steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase
in
global temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as
much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you
not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now.

Even if this were true (it's not --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png) an increase in
atmospheric CO2 is constantly presented, by certain people, as a "bad
thing." CO2 is an essential link for all life on this planet. More CO2
available in the air, and slightly warmer temperatures, is a good thing.

Went up to the boat today
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:25:48 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Three times as much, I think not.

Tut tut, Neal. Always a mistake to attack religious belief.

Average atmospheric CO2 runs between 300 and 400 ppm -- an increase of 3x
would put us at 900-1200. Are you suggesting that there is data which shows
that is where we are? Or are you relying upon religious belief that suggests
we will get there in a few years?

You are basing your argument upon a computer model of where a few people
believe we WILL be in another 43 years -- not the actual measurable data of
where we are today, or where the world has been.

Went up to the boat today
 

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as
members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single
individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology.
Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political
hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic.
Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you
think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct
scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking in
public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the
expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto?

I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from
anything considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is
depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the uninformed
will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters. Absolutely
pathetic.

Went up to the boat today
 

"mr.b" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al
Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as
members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single
individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology.
Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political
hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic.
Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you
think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct
scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking in
public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the
expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto?

I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from
anything considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is
depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the uninformed
will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters. Absolutely
pathetic.



Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into the
category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the uninformed"?
Rational discourse ends here.

Went up to the boat today
 

In article ,
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 10:23:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:25:48 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Three times as much, I think not.

Tut tut, Neal. Always a mistake to attack religious belief.

So, now you are going to try and convince us that King Tut is behind
all of this?

CWM

Shhhhh.....

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Went up to the boat today
 

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:23 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:


"mr.b" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al
Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as
members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single
individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology.
Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political
hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic.
Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you
think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct
scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking
in public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the
expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto?

I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from anything
considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is
depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the
uninformed will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters.
Absolutely pathetic.




Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into
the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the
uninformed"? Rational discourse ends here.

I've edited your post to show the way you should have written it.

Rational discourse ends here. Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global
Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the
weak minded (or) the uninformed"?

Feel free to respond to my critique of your so-called expert site. I'm
anticipating a deafening silence.