"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

"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

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

"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.

"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".

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.

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!

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?

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.

"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?