For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

Don't you know better than to argue with the religion of "global warming
alarmists" ?

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2006 04:49:24 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


? wrote:
....there is a program concerning that subject on The Discovery Channel,
Sunday, July 16th, at 9:00P EDT.

Maybe it will provide some ammo for all the participants in the
humongous
thread below.

Bishoop....

The righties won't watch it. They'd rather stick there head in the sand
than be informed, because Rush And Hannity tell them to.

What the hell is with you and 'the righties'? This is twice in the past
week you've accused 'the righties' of something.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

Because to those that adhere to the religion of "global warming alarmists"
anyone that disagrees is a heretic and must be condemned.

Kevin wouldn't know 'good science' if it bitch slapped him in the head. He
is the same person to have claimed to have a masters degree that was not
even offered by the institute he claimed granted it.

wrote in message
oups.com...
No, the "right" wasn't even mentioned in the origional post, until you
felt it your duty to force it on the thread.

The thread was about a program on the Discovery Chanel, and nothing
political about the post.


basskisser wrote:
wrote:
No, not at all. I'm just wondering why you had to make this a political
thread?


Because the right wing made it a political issue.

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

On 14 Jul 2006 04:11:08 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


wrote:
No, not at all. I'm just wondering why you had to make this a political
thread?


Because the right wing made it a political issue.

The original post made mention of a program on the Discovery Channel. It
made no comments about 'left or right'.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Jul 2006 04:49:24 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


? wrote:
....there is a program concerning that subject on The Discovery
Channel,
Sunday, July 16th, at 9:00P EDT.

Maybe it will provide some ammo for all the participants in the
humongous
thread below.

Bishoop....

The righties won't watch it. They'd rather stick there head in the sand
than be informed, because Rush And Hannity tell them to.

It's more like following the party line for the "warmers".

Any scientist who actually has studied the issue says it's bull****.

Really?

Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...gerprints.html
States in part:
In its 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
stated, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
[3] Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and land clearing has been
accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping
Earth warm and heating up the surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a
result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher
than at any time during the last 650,000 years. [4,5,6]

NASA scientists rip Bush on Global Warming (and the typical head in the
sand)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/
Which states in part:
Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures
on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect - increased
emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere
that trap heat. Most of that increase comes from burning fossil fuels.

Theres many, many more. As a matter of fact, most scientists who have
spoken about Al Gore's movie says he's spot on in a lot of cases, and
not far from spot on the rest of the movie.

I'd suppose you only consider "any scientist who has actually studied
the issue" just the one's who have a right wing agenda, correct?


The models show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a
global average temperature increase. How much is debatable and it's hard to
determine if the one degree temp increase in average temperatures over the
last 50 years is due to the sun or carbon dioxide as variations in global
temperatures have varied much more than one degree over the last eighty
years.

So what if temps increase two more degrees over then next 50 years (if the
model is correct). So the seas go up 18 inches, we have stronger hurricanes
and storms. More flooding....higher crop yields....less cancer....some
islands in the pacific (2 foot above sea level) will flood out....less
heating oil used in the north (milder winters)....fewer fires .....it's a
mixed bag.

Conservatives are traditionally the ones who resist change....here it seems
the lefties don't like change....they must own allot of that waterfront
property.

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

wrote:
No, the "right" wasn't even mentioned in the origional post, until you
felt it your duty to force it on the thread.

The thread was about a program on the Discovery Chanel, and nothing
political about the post.

Hmm, perhaps you should step back, and try to comprehend just a little.
YOU asked what global warming had to do with politics. I answered. IF
you had wanted to know what THIS THREAD had to do with politics, you
should have asked THAT. Pretty simple, huh?

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

The models show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will
cause a global average temperature increase.

Actual increased CO2 increases plant growth, and that has happened: there
is more forest land in the US today than 100 years ago.

That's mainly because land cleared for small, individual farms 100 years ago
has been allowed to regrow.

Eisboch

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

basskisser wrote:
wrote:

huh?


Having trouble reading?


Nice edit. Try harder next time.

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 04:11:08 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


wrote:
No, not at all. I'm just wondering why you had to make this a political
thread?


Because the right wing made it a political issue

"Right wingers" like Al Gore?

Al Gore is only defending science AGAINST the right wing, who's idea of
science is Rush Limbaugh telling them that global warming isn't
happening.

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

P. Fritz wrote:
Because to those that adhere to the religion of "global warming alarmists"
anyone that disagrees is a heretic and must be condemned.

Kevin wouldn't know 'good science' if it bitch slapped him in the head. He
is the same person to have claimed to have a masters degree that was not
even offered by the institute he claimed granted it.



Hey, Fritz, care to take the $5000 challenge that I'm not Kevin? Put
up, or shut up. Oh, and you are dead ass wrong about my degrees. Dead
wrong. And, if you'll put up the $5000 to prove that I'm not Kevin,
then you'll know who I am, and can investigate. Ready?

For you global warming/cooling fans....
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

The models show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will
cause a global average temperature increase.

Actual increased CO2 increases plant growth, and that has happened:
there is more forest land in the US today than 100 years ago.

That's mainly because land cleared for small, individual farms 100
years ago has been allowed to regrow.

I was hoping someone would point this out, since it permits us to split the
leftie wackos into competing "save the family farm" and "save the forest"
camps and watch them beat eachother up.

Both can happen and coexist, but you are too narrow minded to know
that. Save the forests from clear cutting thousands and thousands of
acres, leave the farms as is. Pretty simple when you get your head out
of the sand, huh?