|
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat screaming the sky is falling. I assume you have information indicating that the science behind this is all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your information sounds interesting. Got links? Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it all on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind not burn enough wood? What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be ANY evidence that would convince you? McKee, like most Republicans, buys into the "we have nothing to do with global warming" argument because he thinks taking it seriously might result in some sort of "restrictions." His dismissal of the evidence that exists has nothing to do with science, or, in fact, anything but conservative politics. Ergo, there is no evidence that would convince him otherwise. And where is your scientific proof that Global warming is 100% man's fault? Oh, forgot, you are not a scientist. Harry is once again has things reversed.....the politics are governing those that believe in human caused global warming Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure- ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada. Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin. a.. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.] b.. Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use. c.. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence. While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action. However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that: a.. Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year. b.. Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million. c.. Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs. Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period. Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate. a.. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes. b.. From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend. c.. The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms. Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations. What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere. Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries. http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat screaming the sky is falling. I assume you have information indicating that the science behind this is all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your information sounds interesting. Got links? Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it all on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind not burn enough wood? It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? "The technical limitations of our current climate models and knowledge are, to put it bluntly, horrendous. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits openly that we know next-to-nothing about 75% of the main factors implicated. We therefore cannot allow the global warming alarmists' key antinomy to pass unchallenged: namely, that while climate is an exceedingly complex non-linear chaotic system, we can control climate by adjusting just one set of factors. While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one that has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the motive to do so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early 1990s its intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth, especially in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is both faster and worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural, but must be caused by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be the United States. The concept has been translated into a matter of faith, transcending "the theoretical use of reason." For the good folk involved, following Kant, global warming has become neither a matter of knowledge nor of opinion, but wholly a matter of morality. The threat of global warming has, as a result, morphed into the world's public enemy #1, al-Qaeda notwithstanding. It is the ultimate product of the Mordor of the present age, George W. Bush starring as Sauron, "Lord of the Rings," with his genetically modified orcs and spouting smokestack industries. It is the inevitable outcome of a Faustian pact with the devils of capitalism, industrial growth, and profit. It is Christ tempted down from the High Places to the ruin of the modern world. It is the "Shire" of Europe against all the metal, mills and putrid production of an Erin Brockovich America. It is Harry Potter versus the Quirrells of greed and gas guzzling. Dangerously, we have allowed all of this myth-making to lead to the Kyoto Protocol, to the foolish assumption that we can actually create a "sustainable," unchanging climate (an oxymoron if ever there was one). The Kyoto Protocol is a scientific and economic nonsense that will cost the world dear in economic terms while doing absolutely nothing the stop our ever-changing climate. And the idea that climate change is bad for all is thoroughly challenged in a new book, "Global Warming and the American Economy" (Edward Elgar Publishing), edited by the economist, Robert O. Mendelsohn, of Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. So, please, let`s get more philosophical about global warming. And instead of throwing yet more good money after bad by trying to halt the inexorable and the inevitable, let`s use that money more wisely to help lesser developed countries (LDCs) to grow stronger economies that will enable them to cope better with change -- whether hot, wet, cold, or dry. " http://www.techcentralstation.com/121301M.html |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:26:19 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat screaming the sky is falling. I assume you have information indicating that the science behind this is all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your information sounds interesting. Got links? Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it all on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind not burn enough wood? What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be ANY evidence that would convince you? McKee, like most Republicans, buys into the "we have nothing to do with global warming" argument because he thinks taking it seriously might result in some sort of "restrictions." His dismissal of the evidence that exists has nothing to do with science, or, in fact, anything but conservative politics. Ergo, there is no evidence that would convince him otherwise. And where is your scientific proof that Global warming is 100% man's fault? Oh, forgot, you are not a scientist. Harry is once again has things reversed.....the politics are governing those that believe in human caused global warming Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure- ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada. Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin. a.. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.] b.. Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use. c.. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence. While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action. However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that: a.. Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year. b.. Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million. c.. Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs. Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period. Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate. a.. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes. b.. From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend. c.. The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms. Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations. What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere. Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries. http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat screaming the sky is falling. I assume you have information indicating that the science behind this is all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your information sounds interesting. Got links? Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it all on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind not burn enough wood? What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be ANY evidence that would convince you? McKee, like most Republicans, buys into the "we have nothing to do with global warming" argument because he thinks taking it seriously might result in some sort of "restrictions." His dismissal of the evidence that exists has nothing to do with science, or, in fact, anything but conservative politics. Ergo, there is no evidence that would convince him otherwise. And where is your scientific proof that Global warming is 100% man's fault? Oh, forgot, you are not a scientist. You should consider doing the Democratic Party a favor and formally change your affiliation to Republican. You'd be happier in the party of Creationism and Cretinism in the world of Flatland. You are still not a scientist and I look more to the Libertarian Party. You just can not handle a Truman type Dem. Anybody to the right of Sen. Kerry, is to you both a neocon and a threat to your livelyhood as a left wing speech writer. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be ANY evidence that would convince you? One major volcanic eruption spews more ozone depleting chemicals in a week than mankind does in years. When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, upper Midwesterners almost starved that year. Between the ash and chemicals, it induced a volcano winter. Was snow in the Midwest in July and the corn crop failed. We are seeing more solar activity. This does not count? maybe it is man and all the political spewing that is contaminating the air and causing the hot air warming. These same "Scientists" were predicting a mini-iceage circa 1970. Maybe ice age grant money dried up. As to Kyoto. Would only hamper the US. France, being 80% nuclear at the time, was posice to make a killing selling electric power. China, could still go along, burning excess amounts of dirty coal, and no penalty, as they are a "Backwards" country. China is the biggest cause of mercury in tuna and other pelegic fish. All that coal burning release of mercury has to go somewhere, and that is out over the Pacific. That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
Bill McKee wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat screaming the sky is falling. I assume you have information indicating that the science behind this is all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your information sounds interesting. Got links? Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it all on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind not burn enough wood? What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be ANY evidence that would convince you? McKee, like most Republicans, buys into the "we have nothing to do with global warming" argument because he thinks taking it seriously might result in some sort of "restrictions." His dismissal of the evidence that exists has nothing to do with science, or, in fact, anything but conservative politics. Ergo, there is no evidence that would convince him otherwise. And where is your scientific proof that Global warming is 100% man's fault? Oh, forgot, you are not a scientist. What an idiot!!! I never, ever said that global warming was "100% man's fault". Damn, try to stay with it here, Bill. I never said that, never eluded to that, never said anything that would make one surmise that that was my intent. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/...s/e_grnhse.htm http://www.science.gmu.edu/~zli/ghe.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jones/tm...up11/home.html http://www.main-vision.com/richard/G...e%20effect.htm http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/global-warming.html If you need more, just let me know! |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
John H. wrote: Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! John, I can see you weren't bright enough to see that what little Fritz posted was 1997 drivel with little real data to back up anything? And I see that you weren't bright enough to pick up on the fact that what little REAL data given, was skewed, huh? |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
John H. wrote: Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! Hehe! Rants from a political group, as opposed to science. I'm glad to see that right wingers like you, Fritz, and NOYB never let REAL science and REAL data get in the way of BushCo's agenda. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be ANY evidence that would convince you? One major volcanic eruption spews more ozone depleting chemicals in a week than mankind does in years. When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, upper Midwesterners almost starved that year. Between the ash and chemicals, it induced a volcano winter. Was snow in the Midwest in July and the corn crop failed. We are seeing more solar activity. This does not count? maybe it is man and all the political spewing that is contaminating the air and causing the hot air warming. These same "Scientists" were predicting a mini-iceage circa 1970. Maybe ice age grant money dried up. As to Kyoto. Would only hamper the US. France, being 80% nuclear at the time, was posice to make a killing selling electric power. China, could still go along, burning excess amounts of dirty coal, and no penalty, as they are a "Backwards" country. China is the biggest cause of mercury in tuna and other pelegic fish. All that coal burning release of mercury has to go somewhere, and that is out over the Pacific. That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
P. Fritz wrote: snip 1996 data??!!!!!! Well, at least you fooled Herring!! He bit it like bass on a nightcrawler! |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote:
Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On 11 Nov 2005 05:12:16 -0800, wrote:
John H. wrote: Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! John, I can see you weren't bright enough to see that what little Fritz posted was 1997 drivel with little real data to back up anything? And I see that you weren't bright enough to pick up on the fact that what little REAL data given, was skewed, huh? The truth can be found he http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html Go for it! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On 11 Nov 2005 05:15:10 -0800, wrote:
John H. wrote: Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! Hehe! Rants from a political group, as opposed to science. I'm glad to see that right wingers like you, Fritz, and NOYB never let REAL science and REAL data get in the way of BushCo's agenda. Here's some REAL science! http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 05:15:10 -0800, wrote: John H. wrote: Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! Hehe! Rants from a political group, as opposed to science. I'm glad to see that right wingers like you, Fritz, and NOYB never let REAL science and REAL data get in the way of BushCo's agenda. Here's some REAL science! http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html What is so funny is kevin is blinded to the politics of his "real" science. And he wonders why he is still the "King of the NG idiots" -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 05:12:16 -0800, wrote: John H. wrote: Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! John, I can see you weren't bright enough to see that what little Fritz posted was 1997 drivel with little real data to back up anything? And I see that you weren't bright enough to pick up on the fact that what little REAL data given, was skewed, huh? The truth can be found he http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html Go for it! Kevin is the one that isn't bright enough.....his chicken little act is pretty comical to watch though. The red flags on any piece about global warming is "there is a consensus among scientists" and/or "human caused global warming is a fact" -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! The "King" soiled himself once again LMAO -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:13:26 -0500, "P Fritz"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! The "King" soiled himself once again LMAO -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes Where'd he go? Where'd he go? He *is* unreal! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"John H." wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:13:26 -0500, "P Fritz" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! The "King" soiled himself once again LMAO -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes Where'd he go? Where'd he go? He *is* unreal! It is just proof that he doesn't read (or maybe just cannot understand) the links that he posts, rather he just "goose steps like a lemming" because "he is so narrow minded" to the liebral party line. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. From discussions I have had with environmental scientists and chemists the "science" that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocols is of highly questionable value and does not stand the scrutiny of the public eye. The only people that are pushing the Kyoto Protocols are politicians, hoping to look good for the next election, and those countries that will be selling their pollution credits. The amount of pollution that will be placed into the atmosphere will still be the same. What have you accomplished? Immediate solution is to start building nuclear power plants all over the US and the world. This will do more to decrease pollution world wide than anything else. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! Di-hydrogen mono-oxide strikes again. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. From discussions I have had with environmental scientists and chemists the "science" that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocols is of highly questionable value and does not stand the scrutiny of the public eye. The only people that are pushing the Kyoto Protocols are politicians, hoping to look good for the next election, and those countries that will be selling their pollution credits. The amount of pollution that will be placed into the atmosphere will still be the same. What have you accomplished? Immediate solution is to start building nuclear power plants all over the US and the world. This will do more to decrease pollution world wide than anything else. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I'm talking for the moment about pollution credits traded only IN THIS COUNTRY, between domestic corporations. It's the same diseased idea as the international ones, except that we know which criminals voted it into law. Have you written to your lawbreakers about this? |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. From discussions I have had with environmental scientists and chemists the "science" that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocols is of highly questionable value and does not stand the scrutiny of the public eye. The only people that are pushing the Kyoto Protocols are politicians, hoping to look good for the next election, and those countries that will be selling their pollution credits. The amount of pollution that will be placed into the atmosphere will still be the same. What have you accomplished? Immediate solution is to start building nuclear power plants all over the US and the world. This will do more to decrease pollution world wide than anything else. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I'm talking for the moment about pollution credits traded only IN THIS COUNTRY, between domestic corporations. It's the same diseased idea as the international ones, except that we know which criminals voted it into law. Have you written to your lawbreakers about this? He wouldn't do anything about it because it benefits the little man in some way. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. From discussions I have had with environmental scientists and chemists the "science" that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocols is of highly questionable value and does not stand the scrutiny of the public eye. The only people that are pushing the Kyoto Protocols are politicians, hoping to look good for the next election, and those countries that will be selling their pollution credits. The amount of pollution that will be placed into the atmosphere will still be the same. What have you accomplished? Immediate solution is to start building nuclear power plants all over the US and the world. This will do more to decrease pollution world wide than anything else. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I'm talking for the moment about pollution credits traded only IN THIS COUNTRY, between domestic corporations. It's the same diseased idea as the international ones, except that we know which criminals voted it into law. Have you written to your lawbreakers about this? He wouldn't do anything about it because it benefits the little man in some way. No dancing. Are you one of those who believe that cleaning up a smokestack will throw a utility into financial hardship, result in unemployment, and turn a little town into a crime-ridden hell? That story? |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. From discussions I have had with environmental scientists and chemists the "science" that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocols is of highly questionable value and does not stand the scrutiny of the public eye. The only people that are pushing the Kyoto Protocols are politicians, hoping to look good for the next election, and those countries that will be selling their pollution credits. The amount of pollution that will be placed into the atmosphere will still be the same. What have you accomplished? Immediate solution is to start building nuclear power plants all over the US and the world. This will do more to decrease pollution world wide than anything else. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I'm talking for the moment about pollution credits traded only IN THIS COUNTRY, between domestic corporations. It's the same diseased idea as the international ones, except that we know which criminals voted it into law. Have you written to your lawbreakers about this? He wouldn't do anything about it because it benefits the little man in some way. No dancing. Are you one of those who believe that cleaning up a smokestack will throw a utility into financial hardship, result in unemployment, and turn a little town into a crime-ridden hell? That story? No dancing. I got gerrymandered. I used to be in a republican dominated district, the token Republican in a see of Democrats, now I am in a district that spans two counties. But, the part of the district I am in is mainly Republican and is more of a finger to move us into a Democrat dominated district. And, the old district lost a majority of its Republicans. I wish Tom Delay would move to Maryland. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. From discussions I have had with environmental scientists and chemists the "science" that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocols is of highly questionable value and does not stand the scrutiny of the public eye. The only people that are pushing the Kyoto Protocols are politicians, hoping to look good for the next election, and those countries that will be selling their pollution credits. The amount of pollution that will be placed into the atmosphere will still be the same. What have you accomplished? Immediate solution is to start building nuclear power plants all over the US and the world. This will do more to decrease pollution world wide than anything else. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I'm talking for the moment about pollution credits traded only IN THIS COUNTRY, between domestic corporations. It's the same diseased idea as the international ones, except that we know which criminals voted it into law. Have you written to your lawbreakers about this? He wouldn't do anything about it because it benefits the little man in some way. No dancing. Are you one of those who believe that cleaning up a smokestack will throw a utility into financial hardship, result in unemployment, and turn a little town into a crime-ridden hell? That story? No dancing. I got gerrymandered. I used to be in a republican dominated district, the token Republican in a see of Democrats, now I am in a district that spans two counties. But, the part of the district I am in is mainly Republican and is more of a finger to move us into a Democrat dominated district. And, the old district lost a majority of its Republicans. I wish Tom Delay would move to Maryland. No dancing. Someone told you that forcing financially healthy utilities to clean up their acts would somehow hurt "the little man", using your words. Who told you that, and why do you believe it? |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:21:52 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. Not at the expense of the USA's future. I know you won't answer the next question, but what the hell - typing is free. Ready? What specific changes do you think would be so disastrous to the USA's economic future? No cutting and pasting. Pretend you're a reporter. Summarize it in your own words, in two paragraphs or less. From discussions I have had with environmental scientists and chemists the "science" that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocols is of highly questionable value and does not stand the scrutiny of the public eye. The only people that are pushing the Kyoto Protocols are politicians, hoping to look good for the next election, and those countries that will be selling their pollution credits. The amount of pollution that will be placed into the atmosphere will still be the same. What have you accomplished? Immediate solution is to start building nuclear power plants all over the US and the world. This will do more to decrease pollution world wide than anything else. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". The Kyoto protocols are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth to the third world and communist countries. If you can buy and sell polution credites then what does it accomplish? By this, I suspect you don't like the system of pollution credits. Neither do I. They're being used here, and they function as a free pass for some companies to continue polluting. Have you written to your legislators about it? The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I agree with the 'Go Nuclear' philosophy. The Navy has been using nuclear reactors on big ships for years, without incident. We should have the same reactors all over the place. Hell, I'd donate part of Harry's back yard for one. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:24:18 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message .. . On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! Di-hydrogen mono-oxide strikes again. Life's a bitch when one posts without reading! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
John H. wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:24:18 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! Di-hydrogen mono-oxide strikes again. Life's a bitch when one posts without reading! -- John H. Life's a bitch when, like you, you don't understand what you are reading. You see, dummy, it isn't the AMOUNT of any given substance in the air, it is the amount of UV penetration that the substance does and doesn't allow. So, again, you are WRONG....sorry, do some more study on the subject. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
John H. wrote: On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! -- LOL indeed. Perhaps you don't know (ignorance) or can't comprhend what you've read. You see, the amount of any given substance in the air isn't the problem. The problem is the amount of UV penetration that is allowed, or not, by any given substance. CFC's are the one of the biggest contributors of shielding, which is the entire problem. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
P Fritz wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 05:15:10 -0800, wrote: John H. wrote: Oh, oh. Someone's been reading! Hehe! Rants from a political group, as opposed to science. I'm glad to see that right wingers like you, Fritz, and NOYB never let REAL science and REAL data get in the way of BushCo's agenda. Here's some REAL science! http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html What is so funny is kevin is blinded to the politics of his "real" science. And he wonders why he is still the "King of the NG idiots" I take it you are too dumb to understand what you've read, too, huh? See my response to John, it clears it up for you narrow minded types. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On 11 Nov 2005 11:08:06 -0800, wrote:
John H. wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:24:18 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! Di-hydrogen mono-oxide strikes again. Life's a bitch when one posts without reading! -- John H. Life's a bitch when, like you, you don't understand what you are reading. You see, dummy, it isn't the AMOUNT of any given substance in the air, it is the amount of UV penetration that the substance does and doesn't allow. So, again, you are WRONG....sorry, do some more study on the subject. Did you bother to read the site? Could you please show me where UV penetration is laid at the feet of man? Do you get ****ed and call names when you do something like this? -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On 11 Nov 2005 11:10:48 -0800, wrote:
John H. wrote: On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! -- LOL indeed. Perhaps you don't know (ignorance) or can't comprhend what you've read. You see, the amount of any given substance in the air isn't the problem. The problem is the amount of UV penetration that is allowed, or not, by any given substance. CFC's are the one of the biggest contributors of shielding, which is the entire problem. Yeah, Kevin. That point is well made in your posted site, right? Whoops, just kidding. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 11:08:06 -0800, wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:24:18 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! Di-hydrogen mono-oxide strikes again. Life's a bitch when one posts without reading! -- John H. Life's a bitch when, like you, you don't understand what you are reading. You see, dummy, it isn't the AMOUNT of any given substance in the air, it is the amount of UV penetration that the substance does and doesn't allow. So, again, you are WRONG....sorry, do some more study on the subject. Did you bother to read the site? Could you please show me where UV penetration is laid at the feet of man? Do you get ****ed and call names when you do something like this? That boy is dumber than a tree stump. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 11:10:48 -0800, wrote: John H. wrote: On 11 Nov 2005 05:07:18 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: It's the RATE of change in global temperature. Funny coincedence for you non-science christian right wingers, the rate of change in global temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CFC's in the air.....hmmmm...... Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard sciences, on board? Because some are republicans, and as such, must goose step to the party of lemmings. Here's the proof you asked for: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html If you need more, just let me know! That first site seems to say it all. Did you bother to look at it? LOL!! -- LOL indeed. Perhaps you don't know (ignorance) or can't comprhend what you've read. You see, the amount of any given substance in the air isn't the problem. The problem is the amount of UV penetration that is allowed, or not, by any given substance. CFC's are the one of the biggest contributors of shielding, which is the entire problem. Yeah, Kevin. That point is well made in your posted site, right? Whoops, just kidding. Have you noticed that kevin is getting more and more incoherent? -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:28:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I'm talking for the moment about pollution credits traded only IN THIS COUNTRY, between domestic corporations. It's the same diseased idea as the international ones, except that we know which criminals voted it into law. Have you written to your lawbreakers about this? Kyoto, as currently written is nothing more than a way to export jobs, avoid environmental regulations, make more money for multinational corporations and tell people they are supposed to feel good about it. I remember a few years ago when I was in Ireland, watching a newscast on Kyoto, and how winder it was because Us companies would have to buy credits from places like Brazil in order to keep manufacturing at the same level. It was strictly a way for the world to throttle the US economy........and suckers like algore (and our resident N.G. idiots) lap it up. Any environmental law that is not enforced world wide ignores this is all the same planet with the same air and water. BTW the "same criminals" control the democrats as control the republicans. That's why elections cost a billion a cycle. It prices out anyone who is not part of the enterprise. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:28:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: The pollution credits are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth in mode of social engineering. Bringing the developing countries up by bringing the developed countries down will only make everyone unhappy. I'm talking for the moment about pollution credits traded only IN THIS COUNTRY, between domestic corporations. It's the same diseased idea as the international ones, except that we know which criminals voted it into law. Have you written to your lawbreakers about this? Kyoto, as currently written is nothing more than a way to export jobs, avoid environmental regulations, make more money for multinational corporations and tell people they are supposed to feel good about it. Any environmental law that is not enforced world wide ignores this is all the same planet with the same air and water. BTW the "same criminals" control the democrats as control the republicans. That's why elections cost a billion a cycle. It prices out anyone who is not part of the enterprise. Start over again. I'm not talking about Kyoto. I'm talking about the FACT that pollution credits will remain as a system here, regardless of international treaties. They were invented here. |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be ANY evidence that would convince you? One major volcanic eruption spews more ozone depleting chemicals in a week than mankind does in years. When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, upper Midwesterners almost starved that year. Between the ash and chemicals, it induced a volcano winter. Was snow in the Midwest in July and the corn crop failed. We are seeing more solar activity. This does not count? maybe it is man and all the political spewing that is contaminating the air and causing the hot air warming. These same "Scientists" were predicting a mini-iceage circa 1970. Maybe ice age grant money dried up. As to Kyoto. Would only hamper the US. France, being 80% nuclear at the time, was posice to make a killing selling electric power. China, could still go along, burning excess amounts of dirty coal, and no penalty, as they are a "Backwards" country. China is the biggest cause of mercury in tuna and other pelegic fish. All that coal burning release of mercury has to go somewhere, and that is out over the Pacific. That wasn't the question. I asked you if it is possible for anyone to come up with evidence which would convince you that our contribution is worth controlling. If you find it difficult to answer that for some reason, then tell me if this comes close to matching your view: "There's not a chance in hell that I'd believe anyone on this subject, no matter how perfect their research might be. Period. End of story, and I'm not listening any more". You are going to have to have hard evidence. Not the suppositions of the bunch from Kyoto. Most of those were Psychologists, etc. Not the hard sciences. Aren't these the same group that was touting coming ice age in 1970? My background and degree is in engineering. We require more than some statement to the effect, we require proof. And proof has not been shown. Why did we have Global Warming and cooling periods over the last 1,000,000+ years? Atlantis use to much CFC's? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com