Doug,
Absolutely, and if the other countries implemented tariffs and less than
preferred status on US products, we would very quickly jump on the
bandwagon. We also can not allow the developing countries a pass on
environmental regulations.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message . ..
Bill,
The problem I have with ignoring Global Warming, is the consequences are
so severe if they are correct and you are wrong. We know pollution is
harmful to humans and the ecosystem, we need to start making substantial
reductions in pollution and impose substantial tariffs and penalties on
those countries that don't.

I assume you'd include our country with those penalties.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:43:10 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would
just
ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there isn't
such a thing as global warming.

Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 01 November 2005
04:34 pm ET



One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic
costs
of global warming.

"Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and
ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences,"
concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance
company.

The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global
Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the
United
Nations Development Program.

Costs already rising

In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate
change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus
to
extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to
forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered.

Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are
projected for each case.

Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters allow
ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth,
stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be
contributing
to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say.

Broad implications

"We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to
ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health,
our
economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul
Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the
Center
for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
"Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable
climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard
and
insure a healthy future."

Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the
risk
from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and businesses
deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change
since
at least 2003.

"Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the
natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic
consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and
economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of
Swiss
Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks and
potential business opportunities that can help minimize future
risks."


The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes.

If good, clean, proper science shows (and it does) that CFC's are a
major contributor to global warming, then BushCo says that that science
is wrong, then the debate is also whether it is happening. You see,
it's happening at a FASTER RATE than ever before. What a remarkable
coincedence that CFC's are at higher levels than ever before. So, in a
way you are correct, but you are also wrong, because the administration
is saying that the science doesn't support the fact that warming is
happening at a higher rate than ever before.


Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? 20 miles
of
Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC
thing?

"So what drives global climate, if not greenhouse gas concentrations?
Well, maybe it's the sun.

There are three variables affecting the Earth's orbit--orbit shape, tilt,
and wobble--which profoundly affect weather patterns. The Earth's orbit does
not form a circle as it moves around the sun--it forms an ellipse, passing
further away from the sun at one end of the orbit than it does at the other
end.

During a 100,000-year cycle, the tug of other planets on the Earth causes
its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short, broad ellipse that keeps
the Earth closer to the sun, to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move
farther from the sun and back again.

At the same time the Earth is orbiting, it also spins around an axis that
tilts lower and then higher during a 41,000-year cycle. Close to the poles,
the contrast between winter and summer is greatest when the tilt is large.
The Earth wobbles because it is spinning around an axis that tilts back and
forth. Thus, a temperature drop occurs in the Northern Hemisphere when it
tilts away from the sun; then the same thing happens in the Southern
Hemisphere and again in the North, in a 22,000-year cycle.

We know from simple physics that the additional energy added to the
climate system by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about four watts per
square meter (W/m2)--a very small amount of energy when compared to the 342
watts per square meter added by the sun's radiation at the top of the
atmosphere, and small also when compared to natural variations in the amount
of radiation the sun sends toward the Earth.

The possible increase in energy stored in the atmosphere due to human
activity is also small when compared to uncertainties in the computer
simulations of the Earth's climate used to predict global warming. For
example, knowledge of the amount of energy flowing from the equator to the
poles is uncertain by an amount equivalent to 25 to 30 W/m2. The amount of
sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected by the surface is also
uncertain, by as much as 25 W/m2. Some computer models include adjustments
to the energy flows of as much as 100 W/m2. Imprecise treatment of the
effect of clouds may introduce another 25 W/m2 of uncertainty into the basic
computations. (2)

These uncertainties are many times larger than the four W/m2 input of
energy believed to result from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere. It is difficult to see how the climate impact of the four W/m2
can be accurately calculated in the face of such huge uncertainties. As a
consequence, forecasts based on the computer simulations of climate may not
even be meaningful at this time."

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726






Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in the world.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been. Note that the
temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does that for urban
areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and the data went
back a 100 years or so, there was very little change.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Global warming" is the biggest hoax in the history of the world.

Ron M.

"Ron M." wrote in message
ups.com...
"Global warming" is the biggest hoax in the history of the world.

Ron M.


Not really. The world has had many cycles of Global Warming and Global
Cooling. 10,000 years ago, Yosemite was full of ice. And Devils Postpile
near Mammoth, Calif. was 4-600' tall. If you do not think that we will not
have more of the same, you are naive.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:43:10 -0500, "P. Fritz"

wrote:


"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would
just
ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there
isn't
such a thing as global warming.

Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 01 November 2005
04:34 pm ET



One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic
costs
of global warming.

"Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and
ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences,"
concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global
re-insurance
company.

The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global
Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the
United
Nations Development Program.

Costs already rising

In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate
change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile
virus
to
extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to
forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered.

Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are
projected for each case.

Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters
allow
ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth,
stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be
contributing
to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say.

Broad implications

"We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to
ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health,
our
economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul
Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the
Center
for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
"Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an
unstable
climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard
and
insure a healthy future."

Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the
risk
from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and
businesses
deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change
since
at least 2003.

"Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the
natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic
consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and
economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of
Swiss
Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks
and
potential business opportunities that can help minimize future
risks."


The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes.

If good, clean, proper science shows (and it does) that CFC's are a
major contributor to global warming, then BushCo says that that
science
is wrong, then the debate is also whether it is happening. You see,
it's happening at a FASTER RATE than ever before. What a remarkable
coincedence that CFC's are at higher levels than ever before. So, in
a
way you are correct, but you are also wrong, because the
administration
is saying that the science doesn't support the fact that warming is
happening at a higher rate than ever before.


Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? 20 miles
of
Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC
thing?

"So what drives global climate, if not greenhouse gas concentrations?
Well, maybe it's the sun.

There are three variables affecting the Earth's orbit--orbit shape,
tilt,
and wobble--which profoundly affect weather patterns. The Earth's orbit
does
not form a circle as it moves around the sun--it forms an ellipse, passing
further away from the sun at one end of the orbit than it does at the
other
end.

During a 100,000-year cycle, the tug of other planets on the Earth
causes
its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short, broad ellipse that
keeps
the Earth closer to the sun, to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move
farther from the sun and back again.

At the same time the Earth is orbiting, it also spins around an axis
that
tilts lower and then higher during a 41,000-year cycle. Close to the
poles,
the contrast between winter and summer is greatest when the tilt is large.
The Earth wobbles because it is spinning around an axis that tilts back
and
forth. Thus, a temperature drop occurs in the Northern Hemisphere when it
tilts away from the sun; then the same thing happens in the Southern
Hemisphere and again in the North, in a 22,000-year cycle.

We know from simple physics that the additional energy added to the
climate system by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about four watts per
square meter (W/m2)--a very small amount of energy when compared to the
342
watts per square meter added by the sun's radiation at the top of the
atmosphere, and small also when compared to natural variations in the
amount
of radiation the sun sends toward the Earth.

The possible increase in energy stored in the atmosphere due to human
activity is also small when compared to uncertainties in the computer
simulations of the Earth's climate used to predict global warming. For
example, knowledge of the amount of energy flowing from the equator to the
poles is uncertain by an amount equivalent to 25 to 30 W/m2. The amount of
sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected by the surface is also
uncertain, by as much as 25 W/m2. Some computer models include adjustments
to the energy flows of as much as 100 W/m2. Imprecise treatment of the
effect of clouds may introduce another 25 W/m2 of uncertainty into the
basic
computations. (2)

These uncertainties are many times larger than the four W/m2 input of
energy believed to result from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere. It is difficult to see how the climate impact of the four W/m2
can be accurately calculated in the face of such huge uncertainties. As a
consequence, forecasts based on the computer simulations of climate may
not
even be meaningful at this time."

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726






Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in the
world.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been. Note
that the
temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does that for
urban
areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and the data
went
back a 100 years or so, there was very little change.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

There are hypothesis that the Urban areas are measured incorrectly. Most
readings are from ground based thermometers, and over the years the areas
around the thermometers have been built up a lot. And the extra buildings
add an error to the reading. Spaced based readings have not changed much
over the years. Lots less than the ground based readings.

No....it is way down the list.

The first "I have a 36 ft. zimmerman like lobsta boat"
The second would be "I did not have sex with that woman....Monica
Lewinsky"
The third "Bush lied about the war"

heehee


"Ron M." wrote in message
ups.com...
"Global warming" is the biggest hoax in the history of the world.

Ron M.

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote in
message ...
Doug,
Absolutely, and if the other countries implemented tariffs and less than
preferred status on US products, we would very quickly jump on the
bandwagon. We also can not allow the developing countries a pass on
environmental regulations.

Good! Write to your lawbreaker and demand that the system of pollution
credits (aka "passes") be dismantled immediately.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:51:10 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .


Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in the
world.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been. Note
that the
temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does that for
urban
areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and the data
went
back a 100 years or so, there was very little change.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

There are hypothesis that the Urban areas are measured incorrectly. Most
readings are from ground based thermometers, and over the years the areas
around the thermometers have been built up a lot. And the extra buildings
add an error to the reading. Spaced based readings have not changed much
over the years. Lots less than the ground based readings.


Yes, the temp rise in urban areas would seem to be related to the quantity of
concrete in urban areas. This would indicate that a return to wooden buildings
with straw roofs would be in order. Asphalt and concrete roads also retain heat
much better than dirt roads, so we should go back to dirt roads.


--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:03:07 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:

No....it is way down the list.

The first "I have a 36 ft. zimmerman like lobsta boat"
The second would be "I did not have sex with that woman....Monica
Lewinsky"
The third "Bush lied about the war"

heehee


"Ron M." wrote in message
oups.com...
"Global warming" is the biggest hoax in the history of the world.

Ron M.



LOL!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:51:10 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..


Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in the
world.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been. Note
that the
temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does that for
urban
areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and the data
went
back a 100 years or so, there was very little change.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

There are hypothesis that the Urban areas are measured incorrectly. Most
readings are from ground based thermometers, and over the years the areas
around the thermometers have been built up a lot. And the extra buildings
add an error to the reading. Spaced based readings have not changed much
over the years. Lots less than the ground based readings.


Yes, the temp rise in urban areas would seem to be related to the quantity
of
concrete in urban areas. This would indicate that a return to wooden
buildings
with straw roofs would be in order. Asphalt and concrete roads also retain
heat
much better than dirt roads, so we should go back to dirt roads.

You're such a visionary. How about requiring that companies use existing
empty commercial real estate, rather than mowing down green space until
there's nothing left but a few weeds poking out of the cracks?