"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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?


OK. I just wanted to be sure you weren't using another scientific theory
I've heard around here, from NOYB, if I recall. It goes something this: "Any
attempt to improve a coal burning power plant's emission levels will have a
severe impact on the dividend I receive from the 1000 shares I own in that
utility". That excuse justifies a firing squad.

"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!!

--
John H.

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

ROTFLOL!

wrote in message
ups.com...

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.
\

Let me post a quote from your stated site. "vapor in the greenhouse system,
carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as
20-fold."

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


From your site:

vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately)
overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

"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?


Different argument. The thread is on Global Warming, not pollution damage.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:55:36 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

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.
\

Let me post a quote from your stated site. "vapor in the greenhouse system,
carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as
20-fold."


Now, see if you can find the 'UV penetration' stuff on that site, 'cause that's
what he was *really* talking about.

No wonder Bush won, Kevin, et al, probably didn't read the ballot and voted for
him.

--
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 Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:55:36 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

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.
\

Let me post a quote from your stated site. "vapor in the greenhouse
system,
carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as
20-fold."


Now, see if you can find the 'UV penetration' stuff on that site, 'cause
that's
what he was *really* talking about.

No wonder Bush won, Kevin, et al, probably didn't read the ballot and
voted for
him.

--
John H.



No, he won *despite* the fact that folks who did not read the ballot or
understand what was at stake did not vote for him.

Sort of like issues 2-5 in Ohio..............a resounding defeat of the
issues yet we had dummies voting *for* them because, according to the
interviews, they did not understand what the issues said or were all about.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:55:36 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

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.
\

Let me post a quote from your stated site. "vapor in the greenhouse
system,
carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as
20-fold."


Now, see if you can find the 'UV penetration' stuff on that site, 'cause
that's
what he was *really* talking about.

No wonder Bush won, Kevin, et al, probably didn't read the ballot and
voted for
him.

--
John H.

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

Not nice, I could have hurt myself falling off the chair.

wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

You are confusing greenhouse effects (global warming) with UV getting
through the atmosphere to the earths surface (sunburns and plant life die
offs).
CFC's act to destroy ozone which blocks UV from reaching the earths surface.
As a greenhouse gas it's about 1/20th as effective as CO2 or water vapor.
Many uninformed confuse CFC's with greenhouse effects. I've heard a few
Democrat senators (Boxer from Ca) who misspoke or are equally confused.

I'm ever impressed that you guys on the left keep calling the right
goosesteppers and lemmings when you have such a tenuous grasp of the
chemistry (physics) involved in these processes. Please understand, I'm
only trying to point out that in some cases you can be wrong because you
believe someone who you have "TRUST" in who has a political agenda that you
are unaware of. This happens to all of us and can even happen to those of
us on the right. Generally it happens (we think) less often because we do
our homework.