John H. wrote:
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.

Life's a bitch when, like you, you don't understand what you are
reading. You see, dummy, it isn't the AMOUNT of any given substance in
the air, it is the amount of UV penetration that the substance does and
doesn't allow. So, again, you are WRONG....sorry, do some more study on
the subject.

John H. wrote:
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!!

--
LOL indeed. Perhaps you don't know (ignorance) or can't comprhend what
you've read. You see, the amount of any given substance in the air
isn't the problem. The problem is the amount of UV penetration that is
allowed, or not, by any given substance. CFC's are the one of the
biggest contributors of shielding, which is the entire problem.

P Fritz wrote:
"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"


I take it you are too dumb to understand what you've read, too, huh?
See my response to John, it clears it up for you narrow minded types.

On 11 Nov 2005 11:08:06 -0800, wrote:


John H. wrote:
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.

Life's a bitch when, like you, you don't understand what you are
reading. You see, dummy, it isn't the AMOUNT of any given substance in
the air, it is the amount of UV penetration that the substance does and
doesn't allow. So, again, you are WRONG....sorry, do some more study on
the subject.

Did you bother to read the site? Could you please show me where UV penetration
is laid at the feet of man?

Do you get ****ed and call names when you do something like this?

--
John H.

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

On 11 Nov 2005 11:10:48 -0800, wrote:


John H. wrote:
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!!

--
LOL indeed. Perhaps you don't know (ignorance) or can't comprhend what
you've read. You see, the amount of any given substance in the air
isn't the problem. The problem is the amount of UV penetration that is
allowed, or not, by any given substance. CFC's are the one of the
biggest contributors of shielding, which is the entire problem.

Yeah, Kevin. That point is well made in your posted site, right? Whoops, just
kidding.

--
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 11:08:06 -0800, wrote:


John H. wrote:
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.

Life's a bitch when, like you, you don't understand what you are
reading. You see, dummy, it isn't the AMOUNT of any given substance in
the air, it is the amount of UV penetration that the substance does and
doesn't allow. So, again, you are WRONG....sorry, do some more study on
the subject.

Did you bother to read the site? Could you please show me where UV
penetration
is laid at the feet of man?

Do you get ****ed and call names when you do something like this?

That boy is dumber than a tree stump.




--
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 11:10:48 -0800, wrote:


John H. wrote:
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!!

--
LOL indeed. Perhaps you don't know (ignorance) or can't comprhend what
you've read. You see, the amount of any given substance in the air
isn't the problem. The problem is the amount of UV penetration that is
allowed, or not, by any given substance. CFC's are the one of the
biggest contributors of shielding, which is the entire problem.

Yeah, Kevin. That point is well made in your posted site, right? Whoops,
just
kidding.


Have you noticed that kevin is getting more and more incoherent?

--
John H.

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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:28:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?


Kyoto, as currently written is nothing more than a way to export jobs,
avoid environmental regulations, make more money for multinational
corporations and tell people they are supposed to feel good about it.

I remember a few years ago when I was in Ireland, watching a newscast on
Kyoto, and how winder it was because Us companies would have to buy credits
from places like Brazil in order to keep manufacturing at the same level.
It was strictly a way for the world to throttle the US economy........and
suckers like algore (and our resident N.G. idiots) lap it up.


Any environmental law that is not enforced world wide ignores this is
all the same planet with the same air and water.

BTW the "same criminals" control the democrats as control the
republicans. That's why elections cost a billion a cycle. It prices
out anyone who is not part of the enterprise.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:28:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?


Kyoto, as currently written is nothing more than a way to export jobs,
avoid environmental regulations, make more money for multinational
corporations and tell people they are supposed to feel good about it.

Any environmental law that is not enforced world wide ignores this is
all the same planet with the same air and water.

BTW the "same criminals" control the democrats as control the
republicans. That's why elections cost a billion a cycle. It prices
out anyone who is not part of the enterprise.

Start over again. I'm not talking about Kyoto. I'm talking about the FACT
that pollution credits will remain as a system here, regardless of
international treaties. They were invented here.

"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.

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".


You are going to have to have hard evidence. Not the suppositions of the
bunch from Kyoto. Most of those were Psychologists, etc. Not the hard
sciences. Aren't these the same group that was touting coming ice age in
1970? My background and degree is in engineering. We require more than
some statement to the effect, we require proof. And proof has not been
shown. Why did we have Global Warming and cooling periods over the last
1,000,000+ years? Atlantis use to much CFC's?