| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
More on Global Warming
John H. wrote:
Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H JohnH, This can't be the real JohnH, because he would never post a political troll guaranteed to stir up one hell of a flamefest. |
More on Global Warming
Provided without comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
"John H." wrote in message ... Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H .....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html |
More on Global Warming
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:17:13 -0400, RJSmithers wrote:
John H. wrote: Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H JohnH, This can't be the real JohnH, because he would never post a political troll guaranteed to stir up one hell of a flamefest. No, not true. Global warming is a boating related topic. It's been mentioned often by those among us who are true to the concept of 'on topic'. Besides, those who would start a flamefest have you and me filtered (?) anyway! -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset. |
More on Global Warming
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message , Don White sprach forth the following: Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth ANOTHER backpedal from the environuts. they sure are poisoining the environment. CO2 is plant food. Why do you hate plants? We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. If you don't like Paris and Britney, change the channel. Oh, and it's "its", not "it's", idiot. You'll have a tiny little chance of being taken seriously if you can spell THREE letter words correctly. Ahh, the name calling has begun in an OT political thread posted by JohnH, the same JohnH who admonishes others for posting OT political stuff here. Double standards strike again. |
More on Global Warming
Stan (the Man) wrote:
\ Being misinformed by ambitious politicians who are in need of a cause -- Stan That's as good an explanation for the mess in Iraq as any. |
More on Global Warming
On Mar 27, 6:04�am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote: In , Don White sprach forth the following: Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth ANOTHER backpedal from the environuts. they sure are poisoining the environment. CO2 is plant food. *Why do you hate plants? We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. If you don't like Paris and Britney, change the channel. Oh, and it's "its", not "it's", idiot. *You'll have a tiny little chance of being taken seriously if you can spell THREE letter words correctly. Five. The number of posts it took before somebody on one side of the issue began calling names in a cut-n-paste. It will go downhill from here. |
More on Global Warming
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
In message , Don White sprach forth the following: Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth ANOTHER backpedal from the environuts. they sure are poisoining the environment. CO2 is plant food. Why do you hate plants? We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. If you don't like Paris and Britney, change the channel. Oh, and it's "its", not "it's", idiot. You'll have a tiny little chance of being taken seriously if you can spell THREE letter words correctly. It's spelled quite properly. It's mis-punctuated. Nevertheless, neither spelling nor punctuation is the environuts' problem. Being misinformed by ambitious politicians who are in need of a cause, and their blind followers is the environuts' problem. -- Stan |
More on Global Warming
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... snip.. Oh, and it's "its", not "it's", idiot. You'll have a tiny little chance of being taken seriously if you can spell THREE letter words correctly. Why don't you peddle your skanky ass somewhere else. |
More on Global Warming
On Mar 27, 4:56�am, John H. wrote:
Provided without comment: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** * * * * * John H I watched the first 25 minutes. Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's. At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of time. Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect, rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history- something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global warming. What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system or directly into a body of water. The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation to write in an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks", thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes, (which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial boat wash with a water recycling system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non- boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves them right. If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats, RV's, ATV's, private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere pleasure trip. Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax would only support a large group of new government employees which would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the problem and accomplish almost nothing. As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all believe....".) Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue. Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece? Al Gore took credit for his. |
More on Global Warming
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:24:26 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html To whom are you writing? I didn't do the documentary, and you obviously didn't watch it. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H Duh..who posted the link?? No I didn't sit and watch all 70 odd minutes of lies. The opening 7 or 8 minutes was enough. |
More on Global Warming
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:56�am, John H. wrote: Provided without comment: �http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** � � � � � John H I watched the first 25 minutes. At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of time. Play the audience for stupid? Please. It's a right-wing apologetica. The audience doesn't have to be *played* for stupid. |
More on Global Warming
Harry Krause wrote:
Stan (the Man) wrote: \ Being misinformed by ambitious politicians who are in need of a cause -- Stan That's as good an explanation for the mess in Iraq as any. I agree, although probably not for your reasons. -- Stan |
More on Global Warming
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:24:26 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html To whom are you writing? I didn't do the documentary, and you obviously didn't watch it. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On 27 Mar 2007 08:32:14 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: On Mar 27, 4:56?am, John H. wrote: Provided without comment: (ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H I watched the first 25 minutes. Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's. At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of time. Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect, rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history- something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global warming. What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system or directly into a body of water. The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation to write in an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks", thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes, (which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial boat wash with a water recycling system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non- boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves them right. If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats, RV's, ATV's, private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere pleasure trip. Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax would only support a large group of new government employees which would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the problem and accomplish almost nothing. As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all believe....".) Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue. Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece? Al Gore took credit for his. My film? It was offered for information only. I'm not about to argue it's merits, etc. You and others have discussed one side of the issue. Here is a discussion of the other side. No arguing or fighting necessary. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:33:18 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:24:26 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html To whom are you writing? I didn't do the documentary, and you obviously didn't watch it. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H Duh..who posted the link?? No I didn't sit and watch all 70 odd minutes of lies. The opening 7 or 8 minutes was enough. It's good to have an open mind! -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:56�am, John H. wrote: Provided without comment: �http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** � � � � � John H I watched the first 25 minutes. Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's. At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of time. Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect, rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history- something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global warming. What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system or directly into a body of water. The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation to write in an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks", thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes, (which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial boat wash with a water recycling system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non- boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves them right. If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats, RV's, ATV's, private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere pleasure trip. Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax would only support a large group of new government employees which would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the problem and accomplish almost nothing. As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all believe....".) Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue. Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece? Al Gore took credit for his. Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you ask about are answered in the film. made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin - more information on it can be found at http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html Jack Redington |
More on Global Warming
On Mar 27, 8:46�pm, Jack Redington wrote:
Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you ask about are answered in the film. made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin * - more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi... Jack Redington- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will stop learning. My objections a 1) one sided (as was Al Gore's) 2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details. 3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985 |
More on Global Warming
On 28 Mar 2007 00:13:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: On Mar 27, 8:46?pm, Jack Redington wrote: Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you ask about are answered in the film. made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin - more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi... Jack Redington- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will stop learning. My objections a 1) one sided (as was Al Gore's) 2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details. 3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985 Chuck, please recommend a documentary that meets your approval. The CO2 numbers, which you'll see when you go back to watch the whole documentary, lag the temperature numbers by some 800 years, not 40. I am surprised that you and Don will not watch the whole thing. Perhaps learning something different is a no-no? Lastly, I highly recommend a book written by a liberal. The book is "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. I'll make it easy for you: http://tinyurl.com/2nabsq -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On Mar 28, 5:26�am, John H. wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 00:13:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: On Mar 27, 8:46?pm, Jack Redington wrote: Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you ask about are answered in the film. made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin *- more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi... Jack Redington- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will stop learning. My objections a 1) one sided (as was Al Gore's) 2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details. 3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985 Chuck, please recommend a documentary that meets your approval. The CO2 numbers, which you'll see when you go back to watch the whole documentary, lag the temperature numbers by some 800 years, not 40. I am surprised that you and Don will not watch the whole thing. Perhaps learning something different is a no-no? Lastly, I highly recommend a book written by a liberal. The book is "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. I'll make it easy for you: http://tinyurl.com/2nabsq -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** * * * * * John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sorry, but I can't recommend a propaganda piece for either side of the question that won't incorporate the fatal flaws of all propaganda pieces. As far as "learning something" goes, it's important to evaluate the motivations of the aspiring teacher before gobbling down the mental gruel. One can "learn" all about jews, blacks, catholics, and homosexuals on any of the KKK websites, for example, but most folks won't do so because the bias is so strong. Thanks for recommending a book by a liberal, but liberal bias is no more useful in this debate than is right wing bias. Who do I trust? Being a mariner, I tend to trust the NOAA. Oddly enough, I also trust- in this case, the President of the United States, George W. Bush. Bush oversees the Administrative branch of the US Government and does so very actively. Throughout his first six years in office he has never been shy about firing cabinet members, federal prosecutors, and others who don't toe his political, philosophical, or administrative line. I don't say that to start some discussion about the president- only to point out that heads of important departments and agencies need to function in a way that meets his personal approval or risk being dismisssed. Also, I am very eager to agree that this practice is no different under GWB than it has been under almost every president since Washington. I think we can all agree that Geroge Bush isn't some "left wing enviro- nut". Here's what one of the agencies that report to the POTUS says about the global warming issue: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html (Their climate measurements and models are provided by NOAA) Everybody who burns fossil fuel for recreation should be following the global warming issue very intently. As I have been confirming yet again in my discussions with state and city environmental agencies this week regarding the boat soap issue, boaters are easy targets for meaningless grandstand regulations and restrictions because there are so few of us. A band-aid on public problems, with very little cost to the public at large. |
More on Global Warming
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:46�pm, Jack Redington wrote: Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you ask about are answered in the film. made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin � - more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi... Jack Redington- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will stop learning. I don't think their ideas are all that new. These have been around for 20 some odd years. They have just been suppressed. When one can't create a argument against an opposing view, the actions have - on this subject been not to allow the view to be debated and discussed. Or to discredit the messenger when one has no basis for discrediting the message. I wonder how many of the big TV networks will pick this up and air it ? I watch a two hour long program on one of the big TV networks that was suppose to be on global climet. But ended up being on polution in general. For some reason they just could not seem to locate anyone who would not say that man was not responsable to the earths climent cycles. My objections a 1) one sided (as was Al Gore's) I can agree that they are only voicing their side. But one of the problems with this debate all along is that we have been bombarded with one sided material from goverment funded scientist saying that we as people are having a big effect on climent. Yes I beleive that man has no or little effect on the global climent. But I still watch programs and read material from those whom I do not agree. Apparently you do not agree with this, as you have such a passion for what you beleive. But not the time to watch a 75 minute program that has a opposing view. As I had stated before we need to have a real discusssion that is not just from political whores who suck funds from the public feeling bin. And these guys have the courage to stand up against the massive political enviromental machine. They have more guts then most. They did not hide who they are and what they really think. But have got their point accross without the mainstream media being able to stop them. And they didn't wear masks. 2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details. As are all the documentaries that disagree with them as noted above. I wonder what would happen if the billions of dollars provided to the scientist that are at least saying they beleive man is controling the worlds climent just stopped being avaiable ? If the political winds changed how many would abandon their position just got find a way to the money. No way to really know of course. The people in this program are holding or have held some high level positions in the field of earth science. I am sure the goverment is going to be jumping at the chance to drop some of these billions the US goverment is spending to further their research. 3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985 Maybe inconsistent with the folks who get their money from these goverment programs and or grants. It does not mean their data is incorrect. Cheers. Jack Redington |
More on Global Warming
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H.
wrote: Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? I can't directly address that, but... There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) |
More on Spring
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass formulae. |
More on Global Warming
On 28 Mar 2007 06:30:53 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: On Mar 28, 5:26?am, John H. wrote: On 28 Mar 2007 00:13:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: On Mar 27, 8:46?pm, Jack Redington wrote: Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you ask about are answered in the film. made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin - more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi... Jack Redington- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will stop learning. My objections a 1) one sided (as was Al Gore's) 2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details. 3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985 Chuck, please recommend a documentary that meets your approval. The CO2 numbers, which you'll see when you go back to watch the whole documentary, lag the temperature numbers by some 800 years, not 40. I am surprised that you and Don will not watch the whole thing. Perhaps learning something different is a no-no? Lastly, I highly recommend a book written by a liberal. The book is "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. I'll make it easy for you: http://tinyurl.com/2nabsq -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks for recommending a book by a liberal, but liberal bias is no more useful in this debate than is right wing bias. Snippage Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:03:29 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H. wrote: Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? I can't directly address that, but... There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Yesterday we hit 80F. Today we'll be in the mid 70s. The yard work is making me wish I'd bought a condo, but the golfing is nice! Two weeks 'til launching! -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On 28 Mar 2007 00:13:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: On Mar 27, 8:46?pm, Jack Redington wrote: Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you ask about are answered in the film. made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin - more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi... Jack Redington- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will stop learning. My objections a 1) one sided (as was Al Gore's) 2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details. 3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985 BTW, the EPA site you referenced in another message was informative. It doesn't have the 'world is ending' approach taken by so many others, nor does it lay global warming at mankind's feet. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On Mar 28, 9:17?am, John H. wrote:
BTW, the EPA site you referenced in another message was informative. It doesn't have the 'world is ending' approach taken by so many others, nor does it lay global warming at mankind's feet. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** Nor does it entirely exclude man as potential contributor to the accelerating trend. Anyway, you asked for a source that closely reflected my opinions about the issue and I'm glad that you found that one informative. |
More on Spring
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:35:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass formulae. Fascinating. What kind of boat was he using? |
More on Spring
Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:35:21 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass formulae. Fascinating. What kind of boat was he using? I had the pest guy out today and he was spraying for ants around the border of my home. It really was facinating to watch him work. I feel much better sharing this. Tomorrow my wife and I will be going shopping for spring clothes. |
More on Spring
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:15:59 -0400, RJSmithers wrote:
Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:35:21 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass formulae. Fascinating. What kind of boat was he using? I had the pest guy out today and he was spraying for ants around the border of my home. It really was facinating to watch him work. I feel much better sharing this. Tomorrow my wife and I will be going shopping for spring clothes. Today must be *the* pest control day! Superior came out and did my spring service. They walked. Yesterday I fertilized, put down a pre-emergent weed killer, and a grub killer. I walked. Maybe I don't need a treadmill after all. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:03:29 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Weird winter. Around here, if I'm not mistaken, it was one of the top five warmest winters on record, but the coldest February. But then, I thought we were talking about climate, not weather. ;-) |
More on Spring
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:35:21 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass formulae. Fascinating. What kind of boat was he using? Relates to boats, as that chemical will become runoff to the local bay. Causing lots of problems for the Chesapeake Bay boaters. |
More on Global Warming
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset. Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas). I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this issue. To call anyone with a realistic mindset based on SCIENCE a twit points out your bias and lack of education. In the recently heard supreme court case Mass. would benefit from a 5 degree temp rise by 2100. They have not shown, to my knowledge, any loss or potential loss from current EPA policies. I thought from the little I know about the legal system that was a necessity for any legal case, you have to show damages. If I am correct we just had the legal system make a political decision, guess who voted for it.........Expect this to be overturned within 5 years. Florida and Texas MIGHT have a case in that insect life won't get a die off each year as temps don't reach freezing long enough. The other STUFF that usually accompanies carbon dioxide out of power plant smoke stacks is already being addressed. If you want stricter regulations go for it. If Clinton had not made the low sulfur coal in Utah off limits (he made it a national park) then we could economically switch to that coal and at the same time reduce emissions with tighter standards. As it is, this won't happen because the anti carbon dioxide lobby will block it. So you in the north above the US industrial belt get acid rain and yellow air to breathe. I hope you like our political system. I think it stinks. no pun intended |
More on Global Warming
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset. Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas). I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this issue. I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the awakening of Terry Schiavo. |
More on Global Warming
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 27, 4:56?am, John H. wrote: Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H I watched the first 25 minutes. Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's. At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of time. Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect, rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history- something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global warming. What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system or directly into a body of water. The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation to write in an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks", thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes, (which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial boat wash with a water recycling system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non- boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves them right. If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats, RV's, ATV's, private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere pleasure trip. Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax would only support a large group of new government employees which would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the problem and accomplish almost nothing. As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all believe....".) Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue. Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece? Al Gore took credit for his. I agree with allot of your observations. One point, carbon dioxide is about the weakest greenhouse gas in all the gases that are listed as greenhouse gases. It's 1/20th as effective as water vapor. Water vapor as clouds during the day reduces earth warming and as high altitude clouds at night it has greenhouse effects. Such a weak greenhouse gas in sufficient quantities might and probably does have an effect. Any increase in earths temperature due to the Sun warming the earth (most probable) or carbon dioxide warming will be amplified by water vapor. In the documentary cooling by water vapor induced clouds during the day can be influenced by sunspot activity. In most cases of the suns cycle without sunspots the water vapor acts to cool the earth. With sunspots there are reduced clouds and water vapors role is primarily as a greenhouse gas. We recently went through a sunspot cycle ending in 2004. |
More on Global Warming
Harry Krause wrote:
Jeff Rigby wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset. Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas). I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this issue. I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the awakening of Terry Schiavo. We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points. |
More on Global Warming
BAR wrote:
Harry Krause wrote: Jeff Rigby wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset. Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas). I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this issue. I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the awakening of Terry Schiavo. We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points. THis fits "global warming to a tee. Identifying pseudoscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.[18] The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific reasoning. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims * Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.[19] * Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[20] * Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor)[21] * Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science. * Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[22] Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation * Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also: falsifiability)[23] * Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict[24] * Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[25] * Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e. hypothesis testing).[26] * Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[27] * Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[28] * Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain negative findings.[29] Lack of openness to testing by other experts * Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").[30] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[31] * Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claimed results.[32] * Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.[33] Lack of progress * Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.[34] Terrence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.[35] * Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[36] By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.[37] Personalization of issues * Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their (confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[38] * Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[39] * Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38] |
More on Global Warming
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:47 -0400, BAR wrote:
We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points Did you see the article about the EU banning outdoor barbecues because they emit CO2? Apparently, it's going to be a 20 Euro permit for every BBQ session. --------- BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session. The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills. Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming. http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html ------------- The best part is that they are going to use helicopters to patrol neighborhoods for illegal barbecues. Let's see - 100 grams per BBQ for - what, hour and a half maybe versus a helicopter which emits a kilogram or so of CO2 per minute? It's not science or economics - it's religion, pure and simple. Worshipping at the altar of Global Warming. |
More on Global Warming
Hehe, that's great... now they'll start grilling indoors (to evade the bbq
police) and die from CO poisoning. Let's see how this beautiful piece of legislation pans out... film at 11. --Mike "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:47 -0400, BAR wrote: We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points Did you see the article about the EU banning outdoor barbecues because they emit CO2? Apparently, it's going to be a 20 Euro permit for every BBQ session. --------- BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session. The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills. Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming. http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html ------------- The best part is that they are going to use helicopters to patrol neighborhoods for illegal barbecues. Let's see - 100 grams per BBQ for - what, hour and a half maybe versus a helicopter which emits a kilogram or so of CO2 per minute? It's not science or economics - it's religion, pure and simple. Worshipping at the altar of Global Warming. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com