wrote in message
ups.com...

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......


Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the hard
sciences, on board?

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

wrote in message
ups.com...

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......


Proof? If it was so obvious, why are not all scientists, at least the
hard
sciences, on board?


"The technical limitations of our current climate models and knowledge
are, to put it bluntly, horrendous. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) admits openly that we know next-to-nothing about 75%
of the main factors implicated. We therefore cannot allow the global warming
alarmists' key antinomy to pass unchallenged: namely, that while climate is
an exceedingly complex non-linear chaotic system, we can control climate by
adjusting just one set of factors.

While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally
unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one that
has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the motive to do
so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early 1990s its
intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth, especially
in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is both faster and
worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural, but must be caused
by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be the United States.

The concept has been translated into a matter of faith, transcending "the
theoretical use of reason." For the good folk involved, following Kant,
global warming has become neither a matter of knowledge nor of opinion, but
wholly a matter of morality.

The threat of global warming has, as a result, morphed into the world's
public enemy #1, al-Qaeda notwithstanding. It is the ultimate product of the
Mordor of the present age, George W. Bush starring as Sauron, "Lord of the
Rings," with his genetically modified orcs and spouting smokestack
industries. It is the inevitable outcome of a Faustian pact with the devils
of capitalism, industrial growth, and profit. It is Christ tempted down from
the High Places to the ruin of the modern world. It is the "Shire" of Europe
against all the metal, mills and putrid production of an Erin Brockovich
America. It is Harry Potter versus the Quirrells of greed and gas guzzling.

Dangerously, we have allowed all of this myth-making to lead to the Kyoto
Protocol, to the foolish assumption that we can actually create a
"sustainable," unchanging climate (an oxymoron if ever there was one). The
Kyoto Protocol is a scientific and economic nonsense that will cost the
world dear in economic terms while doing absolutely nothing the stop our
ever-changing climate. And the idea that climate change is bad for all is
thoroughly challenged in a new book, "Global Warming and the American
Economy" (Edward Elgar Publishing), edited by the economist, Robert O.
Mendelsohn, of Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

So, please, let`s get more philosophical about global warming. And instead
of throwing yet more good money after bad by trying to halt the inexorable
and the inevitable, let`s use that money more wisely to help lesser
developed countries (LDCs) to grow stronger economies that will enable them
to cope better with change -- whether hot, wet, cold, or dry. "

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121301M.html

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

http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/...s/e_grnhse.htm

http://www.science.gmu.edu/~zli/ghe.html

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jones/tm...up11/home.html

http://www.main-vision.com/richard/G...e%20effect.htm

http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/global-warming.html

If you need more, just let me know!

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

"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

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!

--
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 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

"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.

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

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.