"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...


And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat
screaming
the
sky is falling.

I assume you have information indicating that the science behind
this is
all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your
information
sounds interesting. Got links?
No, coral reefs have been dying, some from predators because man has
eaten
or collected the king conch which is a predator of the starfish which
eats
the coral and some from climate, particularly near the equator.
Coral is
very fragile and lives in a very small temperature range - depth. As
temps
increase it will move north of the equator provided there is a
shallow
enough location for it to flourish.

The major problem at this time, especially in the great barrier reefs
is
the
Starfish.

Global climate change is a natural occurring sequence of warming and
cooling. Species die, other survive and new ones develop. It is
nothing to
get excited about..........and it certainly is not "Bush's fault"

Kevin is indeed acting as "chicken Little"

We're still going to need to see your data, imbecile. Prove that we are
having no measurable effect which can be lessened through behavioral
changes.

Temperature seems to play a role in coral bleaching. But there is ample
historical data of bleaching periods when ocean temps were *not* in an
elevated state. Science hasn't been able to come up with an explanation
to that paradox yet. So blaming it on global warming is lazy science.



Sometimes scientists test theories by NOT doing something to a test
subject, or stopping something that's already happening. Placebos would
be an example of the former.

But you're talking about destroying the global economy in the interest of
trying to prove/disprove of a theory.


That's pretty extreme. How do you figure that?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...


And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat
screaming
the
sky is falling.

I assume you have information indicating that the science behind
this is
all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your
information
sounds interesting. Got links?
No, coral reefs have been dying, some from predators because man has
eaten
or collected the king conch which is a predator of the starfish
which eats
the coral and some from climate, particularly near the equator.
Coral is
very fragile and lives in a very small temperature range - depth.
As
temps
increase it will move north of the equator provided there is a
shallow
enough location for it to flourish.

The major problem at this time, especially in the great barrier
reefs is
the
Starfish.

Global climate change is a natural occurring sequence of warming and
cooling. Species die, other survive and new ones develop. It is
nothing to
get excited about..........and it certainly is not "Bush's fault"

Kevin is indeed acting as "chicken Little"

We're still going to need to see your data, imbecile. Prove that we
are having no measurable effect which can be lessened through
behavioral changes.

Temperature seems to play a role in coral bleaching. But there is ample
historical data of bleaching periods when ocean temps were *not* in an
elevated state. Science hasn't been able to come up with an
explanation to that paradox yet. So blaming it on global warming is
lazy science.



Sometimes scientists test theories by NOT doing something to a test
subject, or stopping something that's already happening. Placebos would
be an example of the former.

But you're talking about destroying the global economy in the interest of
trying to prove/disprove of a theory.


That's pretty extreme. How do you figure that?

What effect do you think immediate steep curbs on carbon monoxide output
would have on the world economy?

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...


And meanwhile, Kevin is running around in his tin foil hat
screaming
the
sky is falling.

I assume you have information indicating that the science behind
this is
all wrong. Coral are not being affected as described. Your
information
sounds interesting. Got links?
No, coral reefs have been dying, some from predators because man
has eaten
or collected the king conch which is a predator of the starfish
which eats
the coral and some from climate, particularly near the equator.
Coral is
very fragile and lives in a very small temperature range - depth.
As
temps
increase it will move north of the equator provided there is a
shallow
enough location for it to flourish.

The major problem at this time, especially in the great barrier
reefs is
the
Starfish.

Global climate change is a natural occurring sequence of warming and
cooling. Species die, other survive and new ones develop. It is
nothing to
get excited about..........and it certainly is not "Bush's fault"

Kevin is indeed acting as "chicken Little"

We're still going to need to see your data, imbecile. Prove that we
are having no measurable effect which can be lessened through
behavioral changes.

Temperature seems to play a role in coral bleaching. But there is
ample historical data of bleaching periods when ocean temps were *not*
in an elevated state. Science hasn't been able to come up with an
explanation to that paradox yet. So blaming it on global warming is
lazy science.



Sometimes scientists test theories by NOT doing something to a test
subject, or stopping something that's already happening. Placebos would
be an example of the former.

But you're talking about destroying the global economy in the interest
of trying to prove/disprove of a theory.


That's pretty extreme. How do you figure that?

What effect do you think immediate steep curbs on carbon monoxide output
would have on the world economy?



Pretty serious, but in all my years of watching pollution regs put in place,
I've never seen ONE that was immediate. You will now say that "immediate" is
what some people want, but you don't actually believe they expect such an
outcome. It's a negotiating tactic.