"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

"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.

"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.

"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?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"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.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"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?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"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.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"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?

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

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