Who said the following?
 

'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

Who said the following?
 

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

I am going to guess, and say Henry Waxman. Am I close?

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Who said the following?
 

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"


Ahhh...Mr. Luddite's morning quiz.
Try removing the wax from your ears, man.

Man's contribution to global warming is real, even if you and the rest
of the backwards-looking members of the Groaning Obsolete Party want it
to be otherwise.

Who said the following?
 

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

I am going to guess, and say Henry Waxman. Am I close?


Would someone please make the big one occur so that California seperates
from the form CONUS.

Who said the following?
 

On Thu, 21 May 2009 08:12:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

I am going to guess, and say Henry Waxman. Am I close?

DING DING DING!!

And your prize will be...

NOTHING!!

Can't make anything for you because of carbon emissions.

Sorry.

Who said the following?
 

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 May 2009 08:12:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

I am going to guess, and say Henry Waxman. Am I close?

DING DING DING!!

And your prize will be...

NOTHING!!

Can't make anything for you because of carbon emissions.

Sorry.

We could save some carbon emmisions and recycle the politicians? We could
use the politicians carbon to make boats, at least then they would be true
and useful.

Who said the following?
 

HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"


Ahhh...Mr. Luddite's morning quiz.
Try removing the wax from your ears, man.

Man's contribution to global warming is real, even if you and the rest
of the backwards-looking members of the Groaning Obsolete Party want it
to be otherwise.

Obviously HR religious belief have been attacked.

Who said the following?
 

On May 21, 7:14*am, HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

Ahhh...Mr. Luddite's morning quiz.
* Try removing the wax from your ears, man.

Man's contribution to global warming is real, even if you and the rest
of the backwards-looking members of the Groaning Obsolete Party want it
to be otherwise.

Just for you, Harry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0NJ71TMoII

Who said the following?
 

Tim wrote:
On May 21, 7:14 am, HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"
Ahhh...Mr. Luddite's morning quiz.
Try removing the wax from your ears, man.

Man's contribution to global warming is real, even if you and the rest
of the backwards-looking members of the Groaning Obsolete Party want it
to be otherwise.

Just for you, Harry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0NJ71TMoII


Been a long time since I've seen a "Rush" with talent, though I do have
a video of the gaseous anomaly known as Rush Limbaugh jumping up and
down on stage.

Who said the following?
 

On Thu, 21 May 2009 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On May 21, 7:14*am, HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

Ahhh...Mr. Luddite's morning quiz.
* Try removing the wax from your ears, man.

Man's contribution to global warming is real, even if you and the rest
of the backwards-looking members of the Groaning Obsolete Party want it
to be otherwise.

Just for you, Harry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0NJ71TMoII

Rush?

BBBAAWWWWAAAHHHHAAAAAA!!!!

Unfortunately, it will zoom through one ear and out the other.

Who said the following?
 

On Thu, 21 May 2009 06:27:06 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 May 2009 08:12:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

I am going to guess, and say Henry Waxman. Am I close?

DING DING DING!!

And your prize will be...

NOTHING!!

Can't make anything for you because of carbon emissions.

Sorry.

We could save some carbon emmisions and recycle the politicians? We could
use the politicians carbon to make boats, at least then they would be true
and useful.

Political carbon fiber?

No thanks.

I wonder when they are going to get around to taxing breathing though
- I mean there are 6 billion people on Earth - that's got to be
something to consider for cap and trade. A large source of carbon
emissions and, dare I say it, other "greenhouse" asses...er..gasses.

I mean think about it - how many times a year do you..um..blast a real
stinker - times six billion...wow, that's a lot of greenhouse gas
being emitted.

Espiecally after eating Chinese food. No wonder you can't see more
than a 1/2 mile on the average day in Bejing.

Who said the following?
 

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

Dan Quale

Who said the following?
 

On May 21, 8:01*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

It amazes me that allegedly intelligent people just can't understand
the concept of balance.
The far right wing seems to think that hey, plants NEED CO2, so more
is better......
Kind of like humans need water to live, so if the world's ice melts
and the world turns to one big ocean with no land, we'll be good to go.

Who said the following?
 

On Thu, 21 May 2009 07:00:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 21, 8:01*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

It amazes me that allegedly intelligent people just can't understand
the concept of balance.
The far right wing seems to think that hey, plants NEED CO2, so more
is better......
Kind of like humans need water to live, so if the world's ice melts
and the world turns to one big ocean with no land, we'll be good to go.

But that's just the point - the science isn't settled, nobody knows
what is or isn't happening.The highly vaunted MIT Global Model, out of
400 possible results, shows exactly 20 possibilities that end in the
drastic scenarios being promulgated - 20 out of 400 and the
assumptions made in the model are so outrageous that it defies
description.

James Hanson (Hockey Stick Theory) has been completely discredited,
proponents of doomsday scenarios can't even settle on a way to
describe this proported phenomenon and solar science is being
completely ignored as part of the equation.

Let's take your example as a "for instance". The Artic melts and the
waters rise a minimum of six inches to over two feet inundating the
worlds cities. Ok, but hasn't anybody heard of water vapor? There are
sound models that suggest that if anything, the world will become a
more soggy place from rain assuming, and that's a big assume, that the
entire ice sheet melts - which is impossible.

And let's take "temperature" creep. The core data samples used in a
lot of these models are taken from areas that are largely urban in
nature and mostly in industrialized areas of the world. The weather
station over at the Thompson Dam is a great example. It used to be
located in a woods - it's now sitting in the middle of a parking lot.
Bradley Field's (Hartford) weather system is located right next to a
building on the tarmac and surrounded by black top - it reads
consistently 3 degrees higher than any other reporting station in the
state, but it's the "official" reporting station and it's data counts.

And let's not forget that a large part of the world isn't sampled at
all.

Want to discuss the recent ASOS findings?

Let's be reasonable - yes, man does affect the environment - can't
argue that. Is it a good idea reduce air pollution, clean our waters
and try to act as responsible as possible? Certainly. Recycle, etc.,
good things and socially responsible. Got it - agree completely. I'm
all for gas milage - it only makes sense to reduce consumption
reasonably and responsiblity.

Demonizing an opposing point of view that is based on science and
takes a different approach to the problems isn't science - it's a
political approach and doesn't help any.

Who said the following?
 

On May 21, 11:13*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 07:00:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 21, 8:01*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

It amazes me that allegedly intelligent people just can't understand
the concept of balance.
The far right wing seems to think that hey, plants NEED CO2, so more
is better......
Kind of like humans need water to live, so if the world's ice melts
and the world turns to one big ocean with no land, we'll be good to go.

But that's just the point - the science isn't settled, nobody knows
what is or isn't happening.The highly vaunted MIT Global Model, out of
400 possible results, shows exactly 20 possibilities that end in the
drastic scenarios being promulgated - 20 out of 400 and the
assumptions made in the model are so outrageous that it defies
description.

James Hanson (Hockey Stick Theory) has been completely discredited,
proponents of doomsday scenarios can't even settle on a way to
describe this proported phenomenon and solar science is being
completely ignored as part of the equation.

Let's take your example as a "for instance". The Artic melts and the
waters rise a minimum of six inches to over two feet inundating the
worlds cities. Ok, but hasn't anybody heard of water vapor? There are
sound models that suggest that if anything, the world will become a
more soggy place from rain assuming, and that's a big assume, that the
entire ice sheet melts - which is impossible.

And let's take "temperature" creep. The core data samples used in a
lot of these models are taken from areas that are largely urban in
nature and mostly in industrialized areas of the world. The weather
station over at the Thompson Dam is a great example. *It used to be
located in a woods - it's now sitting in the middle of a parking lot.
Bradley Field's (Hartford) weather system is located right next to a
building on the tarmac and surrounded by black top - it reads
consistently 3 degrees higher than any other reporting station in the
state, but it's the "official" reporting station and it's data counts.

And let's not forget that a large part of the world isn't sampled at
all.

Want to discuss the recent ASOS findings?

Let's be reasonable - yes, man does affect the environment - can't
argue that. Is it a good idea reduce air pollution, clean our waters
and try to act as responsible as possible? *Certainly. Recycle, etc.,
good things and socially responsible. Got it - agree completely. I'm
all for gas milage - it only makes sense to reduce consumption
reasonably and responsiblity.

Demonizing an opposing point of view that is based on science and
takes a different approach to the problems isn't science - it's a
political approach and doesn't help any.

Are you saying that the scientist that agree that global warming IS
occuring....aren't using sound science in their approach? Did you
happen to see the latest National Geographic magazine's article about
the melting arctic ice sheets?
How about Scientific American?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...of-global-warm

(that's a good read, you'll like it!)

What do you say about the fact that there is DIRECT correlation
between rising ocean temps and amounts of man-made pollution in the
atmosphere? Do I know for a fact that man has caused all of this?
Nope, and don't purport to. But I'm not about to sit around and do
nothing until it's too late.

Who said the following?
 

On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Are you saying that the scientist that agree that global warming IS
occuring....aren't using sound science in their approach?

I'm saying that they are reaching conclusions based on faulty data,
personal bias, obtaining more "research" grants and an over arching
need to be relevant no tto mention joining the band wagon.

So yes - I'm saying that they are ignoring important evidence that
contradicts thier theories and conclusions. Which isn't sound science
- it's pop science.

Science of The Day I think it was once called.

Did you happen to see the latest National Geographic magazine's
article about the melting arctic ice sheets?

Sure did - the "Ice Baby" issue. Did you happen to read the part about
how the new mapping of the Artic sea floor is leading scientists to
conclude that this has happened before?

And that it's not quite as dramatic as you make it sound?

Who said the following?
 

On May 21, 2:24*pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Are you saying that the scientist that agree that global warming IS
occuring....aren't using sound science in their approach?

I'm saying that they are reaching conclusions based on faulty data,
personal bias, obtaining more "research" grants and an over arching
need to be relevant no tto mention joining the band wagon.

So yes - I'm saying that they are ignoring important evidence that
contradicts thier theories and conclusions. *Which isn't sound science
- it's pop science.

Science of The Day I think it was once called.

Did you happen to see the latest National Geographic magazine's
article about the melting arctic ice sheets?

Sure did - the "Ice Baby" issue. Did you happen to read the part about
how the new mapping of the Artic sea floor is leading scientists to
conclude that this has happened before?

And that it's not quite as dramatic as you make it sound?

Oh, but you make it sound as if the article was stating that warming
has occured at the rate that it is now, and that's not true. Of course
there is a natural cycle. But those cycles are tame and mild compared
to what is happening now. And what about the correlation between
warming trend vs. pollution levels?

From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington The
strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human
activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the
world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is
over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got
it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too
great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million
observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the
world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are
predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate
change

Who said the following?
 

On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:45:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 21, 2:24*pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Are you saying that the scientist that agree that global warming IS
occuring....aren't using sound science in their approach?

I'm saying that they are reaching conclusions based on faulty data,
personal bias, obtaining more "research" grants and an over arching
need to be relevant no tto mention joining the band wagon.

So yes - I'm saying that they are ignoring important evidence that
contradicts thier theories and conclusions. *Which isn't sound science
- it's pop science.

Science of The Day I think it was once called.

Did you happen to see the latest National Geographic magazine's
article about the melting arctic ice sheets?

Sure did - the "Ice Baby" issue. Did you happen to read the part about
how the new mapping of the Artic sea floor is leading scientists to
conclude that this has happened before?

And that it's not quite as dramatic as you make it sound?

Oh, but you make it sound as if the article was stating that warming
has occured at the rate that it is now, and that's not true. Of course
there is a natural cycle. But those cycles are tame and mild compared
to what is happening now. And what about the correlation between
warming trend vs. pollution levels?

From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington The
strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human
activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the
world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is
over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got
it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too
great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million
observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the
world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are
predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate
change

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/...d-217c415f5a6b

It's not settled at all.

Read this.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html

And let's not forget the mind control..er..social "sciences".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...climate-change

Everybody wants a piece of the pie dude and that's what it's all about
- get used to it.

Who said the following?
 

On Thu, 21 May 2009 08:01:42 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

Certainly not Byorn Lomborg. If you've not read any of his global
warming writings, get busy and do so. The guy makes good sense.

http://tinyurl.com/bse67w
--

John H

Who said the following?
 

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

I'd put a Franklin on AlGore.

steve

Who said the following?
 

Who said the following?
 

Vandemaataram Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*_____________
jai hind _____________
Inqlaab zindabaad ____________
Karo ya maro