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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"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?


McKee, like most Republicans, buys into the "we have nothing to do with
global warming" argument because he thinks taking it seriously might
result in some sort of "restrictions." His dismissal of the evidence
that
exists has nothing to do with science, or, in fact, anything but
conservative politics. Ergo, there is no evidence that would convince
him
otherwise.


And where is your scientific proof that Global warming is 100% man's
fault?
Oh, forgot, you are not a scientist.

Harry is once again has things reversed.....the politics are governing
those that believe in human caused global warming

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level
temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6
degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of
climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure
I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is
well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last
15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th
and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings
colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that
humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting
that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with
climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.


a.. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the
Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the
warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -
principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]

b.. Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted
by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate
change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

c.. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of
the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly
actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available
evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past
150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small
part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 -
before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief
underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be
catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action.

However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded
that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no
appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels
and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic
goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of
atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts
per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a
concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that
stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically
and economically feasible. They also concluded that:


a.. Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons
per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year.

b.. Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550
parts per million.

c.. Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature
rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The
government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new
ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental
Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that
it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental
catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane
activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations
organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate
warming, reject these beliefs.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea
levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far
predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in
between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists,
the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the
18,000-year period.

Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent
tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm
ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited
supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to
increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and
destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or
severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that
earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.


a.. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of
hurricanes.

b.. From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even
the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward
trend.

c.. The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant
increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased
activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.
Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various
altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood,
most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to
occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming
occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the
number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some
scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon.
Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life.
Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon
dioxide-filled atmosphere.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the
fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste
and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain
rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:26:19 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"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?


McKee, like most Republicans, buys into the "we have nothing to do with
global warming" argument because he thinks taking it seriously might
result in some sort of "restrictions." His dismissal of the evidence
that
exists has nothing to do with science, or, in fact, anything but
conservative politics. Ergo, there is no evidence that would convince
him
otherwise.


And where is your scientific proof that Global warming is 100% man's
fault?
Oh, forgot, you are not a scientist.

Harry is once again has things reversed.....the politics are governing
those that believe in human caused global warming

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level
temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6
degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of
climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure
I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is
well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last
15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th
and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings
colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that
humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting
that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with
climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.


a.. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the
Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the
warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -
principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]

b.. Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted
by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate
change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

c.. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of
the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly
actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available
evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past
150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small
part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 -
before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief
underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be
catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action.

However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded
that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no
appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels
and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic
goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of
atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts
per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a
concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that
stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically
and economically feasible. They also concluded that:


a.. Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons
per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year.

b.. Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550
parts per million.

c.. Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature
rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The
government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new
ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental
Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that
it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental
catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane
activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations
organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate
warming, reject these beliefs.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea
levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far
predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in
between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists,
the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the
18,000-year period.

Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent
tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm
ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited
supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to
increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and
destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or
severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that
earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.


a.. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of
hurricanes.

b.. From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even
the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward
trend.

c.. The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant
increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased
activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.
Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various
altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood,
most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to
occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming
occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the
number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some
scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon.
Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life.
Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon
dioxide-filled atmosphere.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the
fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste
and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain
rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html


Oh, oh. Someone's been reading!

--
John H.

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

John H. wrote:

Oh, oh. Someone's been reading!

John, I can see you weren't bright enough to see that what little Fritz
posted was 1997 drivel with little real data to back up anything? And I
see that you weren't bright enough to pick up on the fact that what
little REAL data given, was skewed, huh?

On 11 Nov 2005 05:12:16 -0800, wrote:


John H. wrote:

Oh, oh. Someone's been reading!

John, I can see you weren't bright enough to see that what little Fritz
posted was 1997 drivel with little real data to back up anything? And I
see that you weren't bright enough to pick up on the fact that what
little REAL data given, was skewed, huh?

The truth can be found he

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html

Go for it!

--
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 05:12:16 -0800, wrote:


John H. wrote:

Oh, oh. Someone's been reading!

John, I can see you weren't bright enough to see that what little Fritz
posted was 1997 drivel with little real data to back up anything? And I
see that you weren't bright enough to pick up on the fact that what
little REAL data given, was skewed, huh?

The truth can be found he

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html

Go for it!


Kevin is the one that isn't bright enough.....his chicken little act is
pretty comical to watch though.

The red flags on any piece about global warming is "there is a consensus
among scientists" and/or "human caused global warming is a fact"

--
John H.

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

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.

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


--
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 05:15:10 -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"





--
John H.

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

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.

P. Fritz wrote:

snip


1996 data??!!!!!! Well, at least you fooled Herring!! He bit it like
bass on a nightcrawler!