"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.

On 11 Nov 2005 11:08:06 -0800, wrote:


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.

Did you bother to read the site? Could you please show me where UV penetration
is laid at the feet of man?

Do you get ****ed and call names when you do something like this?

--
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 11:08:06 -0800, wrote:


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.

Did you bother to read the site? Could you please show me where UV
penetration
is laid at the feet of man?

Do you get ****ed and call names when you do something like this?

That boy is dumber than a tree stump.




--
John H.

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

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."

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.