"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?


Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and
cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in
the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of
non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it all
on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind not
burn enough wood?

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

"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?


Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and
cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in
the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of
non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it
all on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind
not burn enough wood?


What if they're right? Or, more important, is is possible for there to be
ANY evidence that would convince you?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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

"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?


Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and
cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in
the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of
non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it
all on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind
not burn enough wood?


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.

"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".

"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.

Not at the expense of the USA's future.

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?

"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.



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?

"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.

"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?

"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.

Bill McKee wrote:
"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?


Coral is even more affected by starfish. We have had global warming and
cooling for eons. The coral survives. Survived enough to make atolls in
the Pacific. The question is what is causing Global Warming. A group of
non-physical scientists came up with the Kyoto Agreement, and blamed it all
on mankind. Why did we have a mimi-iceage 10,000 years ago. Mankind not
burn enough wood?

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......