On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 01:02:22 -0500, wrote:

On 10 Nov 2005 12:14:45 -0800, wrote:

But he turned down the Kyoto protocol! All the warming happened in the last
4 1/2 years.

The US Senate, (in Clinton"s term) turned down Kyoto.

Yes, a republican held senate.


The vote was unanimous
95 NO
0 YES
5 abstained.


That just took all the wind out of *that* sail!

--
John H.

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

P. Fritz wrote:

snip


1996 data??!!!!!! Well, at least you fooled Herring!! He bit it like
bass on a nightcrawler!

"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?

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

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

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

"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

"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

"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

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