| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
:...
Kevin, Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns how the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of the time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said the grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn how to read before you post links. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal wrote in message ups.com... 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! |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
Why do you insist on spoiling the fun??
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:08 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: :... Kevin, Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns how the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of the time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said the grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn how to read before you post links. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal wrote in message ups.com... 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! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
JohnH,
Sorry. Kevin, Nevermind. "John H." wrote in message ... Why do you insist on spoiling the fun?? On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:08 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: :... Kevin, Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns how the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of the time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said the grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn how to read before you post links. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal wrote in message ups.com... 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! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
Don't you get tired of shooting fish in a barrel?
"John H." wrote in message ... Why do you insist on spoiling the fun?? On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:08 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: :... Kevin, Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns how the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of the time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said the grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn how to read before you post links. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal wrote in message ups.com... 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! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
Kevin does make it easy.
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... Don't you get tired of shooting fish in a barrel? "John H." wrote in message ... Why do you insist on spoiling the fun?? On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:08 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: :... Kevin, Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns how the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of the time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said the grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn how to read before you post links. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal wrote in message ups.com... 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! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:28:05 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @
Diploma Mill .com wrote: Kevin does make it easy. ....and fun. But, like winning 25 games in a row of Tic Tac Toe, it gets boring. "P Fritz" wrote in message ... Don't you get tired of shooting fish in a barrel? "John H." wrote in message ... Why do you insist on spoiling the fun?? On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:08 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: :... Kevin, Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns how the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of the time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said the grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn how to read before you post links. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal wrote in message ups.com... 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! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
Harry Krause wrote:
Even that would be more interesting than the games of pocket pool you two play with each other. Pool? Now there's a game. Believe Skipper'd give you the seven and the break if you had any sporting blood. -- Skipper |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:14:57 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
John H. wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:28:05 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: Kevin does make it easy. ...and fun. But, like winning 25 games in a row of Tic Tac Toe, it gets boring. Even that would be more interesting than the games of pocket pool you two play with each other. Get your 'mind' out of the gutter, Harry. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
I think Harry is hoping for some strange.
"John H." wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:14:57 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:28:05 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: Kevin does make it easy. ...and fun. But, like winning 25 games in a row of Tic Tac Toe, it gets boring. Even that would be more interesting than the games of pocket pool you two play with each other. Get your 'mind' out of the gutter, Harry. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril
JohnH,
Seriously, with Kevin lack of attention to detail, can you imagine him as an engineer? I can't imagine him as a draftsman, none the less as an engineer. Kevin imitated Harry with his pretend Ivy League degree, I think his masters in engineering is similar to Harry's Lobster Boat. "John H." wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:28:05 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: Kevin does make it easy. ...and fun. But, like winning 25 games in a row of Tic Tac Toe, it gets boring. "P Fritz" wrote in message ... Don't you get tired of shooting fish in a barrel? "John H." wrote in message ... Why do you insist on spoiling the fun?? On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:38:08 -0500, "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com wrote: :... Kevin, Do you ever read the links you post in here. The first link concerns how the concept of Global Warming is bunk (see below). This reminds me of the time you posted a link to prove Schnapps is whiskey, and the link said the grain alcohol MUST be aged in charred Oak Barrels to be considered Whiskey. Again, disproving your theory. You really do need to learn how to read before you post links. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal wrote in message ups.com... 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! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com