|
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
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com