|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com