Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Joey916 wrote:
For every scientist screaming global warming is bad, you can find one
saying it's no big deal.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...ming_myths.htm

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

...and there are many more.

I'm going back to sleep.
What you fail to offer, of course, is anything with any REAL data. The
FACT is, global warming is occuring. The FACT is, the polar ice caps
are melting at a far greater rate, and at a far greater period of time
than ever. The FACT is, core samples show that CO2 is increasing and at
a rate that isn't linear. Because of ice samples taken that represent
60,000 years, we know that the CO2 rates are increasing logarithmically.

The argument is not that global warming is happening. The alleged causes
of the warming are in question.

Can't read well, huh? Or is it that you can't comprehend what you've
read? Go back, read again, take not of CO2 levels, then take a look at
what is causing CO2 levels to rise at an ever increasing rate. See any
correlation to levels rising and emissions?????


Recently it was reported that the Earth's temperature is as hot today as
it was 2000 years ago,
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html.

Why was it as hot as today 2000 years ago? What caused the cooling
during the intervening 2000 years? Or, has the temperature been
fluctuating between hotter and colder for those 2000 years? Does sunspot
activity have any effect on the earths temperature?

One data point, CO2 levels, does not make a trend. Besides do you
remember the effects of the erruption of the Mt Pinatubo volcano?
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa030901a.htm.

Interesting how forces greater than us have a more immediate effect on
our planet.

Boy, you righties sure like to blind yourselves, don't you? No one,
particularly not me, has stated that sun spots, cyclical heating
cooling, etc doesn't exist. The facts show, however, that there is a
direct correlation between amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and global
temperature. Also, there is hard data that shows that the CO2 levels
have been increasing at a rate higher than ever before. The earth can
handle certain levels of CO2 from occasional things like eruptions.
This has nothing to do with the millions of tons of green house gases
spewed in the air weekly. What data do you have that suggests that this
is not having an adverse affect on the planet?

basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Joey916 wrote:
For every scientist screaming global warming is bad, you can find one
saying it's no big deal.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...ming_myths.htm

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

...and there are many more.

I'm going back to sleep.
What you fail to offer, of course, is anything with any REAL data. The
FACT is, global warming is occuring. The FACT is, the polar ice caps
are melting at a far greater rate, and at a far greater period of time
than ever. The FACT is, core samples show that CO2 is increasing and at
a rate that isn't linear. Because of ice samples taken that represent
60,000 years, we know that the CO2 rates are increasing logarithmically.

The argument is not that global warming is happening. The alleged causes
of the warming are in question.
Can't read well, huh? Or is it that you can't comprehend what you've
read? Go back, read again, take not of CO2 levels, then take a look at
what is causing CO2 levels to rise at an ever increasing rate. See any
correlation to levels rising and emissions?????

Recently it was reported that the Earth's temperature is as hot today as
it was 2000 years ago,
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html.

Why was it as hot as today 2000 years ago? What caused the cooling
during the intervening 2000 years? Or, has the temperature been
fluctuating between hotter and colder for those 2000 years? Does sunspot
activity have any effect on the earths temperature?

One data point, CO2 levels, does not make a trend. Besides do you
remember the effects of the erruption of the Mt Pinatubo volcano?
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa030901a.htm.

Interesting how forces greater than us have a more immediate effect on
our planet.

Boy, you righties sure like to blind yourselves, don't you? No one,
particularly not me, has stated that sun spots, cyclical heating
cooling, etc doesn't exist. The facts show, however, that there is a
direct correlation between amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and global
temperature. Also, there is hard data that shows that the CO2 levels
have been increasing at a rate higher than ever before. The earth can
handle certain levels of CO2 from occasional things like eruptions.
This has nothing to do with the millions of tons of green house gases
spewed in the air weekly. What data do you have that suggests that this
is not having an adverse affect on the planet?


I tried to have a civil discussion with you about the issue but, you
turned it political.

Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Joey916 wrote:
For every scientist screaming global warming is bad, you can find one
saying it's no big deal.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...ming_myths.htm

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

...and there are many more.

I'm going back to sleep.
What you fail to offer, of course, is anything with any REAL data. The
FACT is, global warming is occuring. The FACT is, the polar ice caps
are melting at a far greater rate, and at a far greater period of time
than ever. The FACT is, core samples show that CO2 is increasing and at
a rate that isn't linear. Because of ice samples taken that represent
60,000 years, we know that the CO2 rates are increasing logarithmically.

The argument is not that global warming is happening. The alleged causes
of the warming are in question.
Can't read well, huh? Or is it that you can't comprehend what you've
read? Go back, read again, take not of CO2 levels, then take a look at
what is causing CO2 levels to rise at an ever increasing rate. See any
correlation to levels rising and emissions?????

Recently it was reported that the Earth's temperature is as hot today as
it was 2000 years ago,
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html.

Why was it as hot as today 2000 years ago? What caused the cooling
during the intervening 2000 years? Or, has the temperature been
fluctuating between hotter and colder for those 2000 years? Does sunspot
activity have any effect on the earths temperature?

One data point, CO2 levels, does not make a trend. Besides do you
remember the effects of the erruption of the Mt Pinatubo volcano?
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa030901a.htm.

Interesting how forces greater than us have a more immediate effect on
our planet.

Boy, you righties sure like to blind yourselves, don't you? No one,
particularly not me, has stated that sun spots, cyclical heating
cooling, etc doesn't exist. The facts show, however, that there is a
direct correlation between amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and global
temperature. Also, there is hard data that shows that the CO2 levels
have been increasing at a rate higher than ever before. The earth can
handle certain levels of CO2 from occasional things like eruptions.
This has nothing to do with the millions of tons of green house gases
spewed in the air weekly. What data do you have that suggests that this
is not having an adverse affect on the planet?


I tried to have a civil discussion with you about the issue but, you
turned it political.

In other words, you don't want to answer this question I posed to you:

What data do you have that suggests that this is not having an adverse
affect on the planet?

I may not have been invited to this party, but I'm gonna blow my party
horn anyway.
Without greenhouse gases we would be very cold indeed with temperatures
similar to planets without atmospheres.
99.7% of our greenhouse gases are natural. We cannot control our
temperature by controlling only 0.3% of our atmo.
Wouldn't we be better off finding ways to predict and go with the flow of
temperature changing?
Gordon


Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Joey916 wrote:
For every scientist screaming global warming is bad, you can find
one
saying it's no big deal.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...ming_myths.htm

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

...and there are many more.

I'm going back to sleep.
What you fail to offer, of course, is anything with any REAL data.
The
FACT is, global warming is occuring. The FACT is, the polar ice caps
are melting at a far greater rate, and at a far greater period of
time
than ever. The FACT is, core samples show that CO2 is increasing and
at
a rate that isn't linear. Because of ice samples taken that
represent
60,000 years, we know that the CO2 rates are increasing
logarithmically.

The argument is not that global warming is happening. The alleged
causes
of the warming are in question.
Can't read well, huh? Or is it that you can't comprehend what you've
read? Go back, read again, take not of CO2 levels, then take a look at
what is causing CO2 levels to rise at an ever increasing rate. See any
correlation to levels rising and emissions?????

Recently it was reported that the Earth's temperature is as hot today
as
it was 2000 years ago,
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html.

Why was it as hot as today 2000 years ago? What caused the cooling
during the intervening 2000 years? Or, has the temperature been
fluctuating between hotter and colder for those 2000 years? Does
sunspot
activity have any effect on the earths temperature?

One data point, CO2 levels, does not make a trend. Besides do you
remember the effects of the erruption of the Mt Pinatubo volcano?
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa030901a.htm.

Interesting how forces greater than us have a more immediate effect on
our planet.

Boy, you righties sure like to blind yourselves, don't you? No one,
particularly not me, has stated that sun spots, cyclical heating
cooling, etc doesn't exist. The facts show, however, that there is a
direct correlation between amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and global
temperature. Also, there is hard data that shows that the CO2 levels
have been increasing at a rate higher than ever before. The earth can
handle certain levels of CO2 from occasional things like eruptions.
This has nothing to do with the millions of tons of green house gases
spewed in the air weekly. What data do you have that suggests that this
is not having an adverse affect on the planet?


I tried to have a civil discussion with you about the issue but, you
turned it political.

Gordon wrote:
I may not have been invited to this party, but I'm gonna blow my party
horn anyway.
Without greenhouse gases we would be very cold indeed with temperatures
similar to planets without atmospheres.
99.7% of our greenhouse gases are natural. We cannot control our
temperature by controlling only 0.3% of our atmo.
Wouldn't we be better off finding ways to predict and go with the flow of
temperature changing?
Gordon

That's absurd. Your first number 99.7% is not correct to begin with,
then you talk about .3% of the atmosphere, apples and oranges, so to
speak. What about methane, Nitrous Oxide, Flourocarbons, etc?