| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
I just saw a couple scary hours of History Channel.
The first hour described millions of years of climate change, then how mankind has accelerated global warming since the industrial revolution. It's getting worse at a faster pace as China and India come on line, and soon the methane released from permafrost decay will further speed things up. Disaster every damn place you look. The second hour covered some of the same territory, but focused on flooding caused by rising sea levels, warming seas causing more damaging hurricanes than ever, whereby Washington, DC, New York, Boston and Baltimore are inundated by the sea. I don't know why Galveston was ignored, but for some reason Havre De Grace, MD was prominently mentioned. This episode was called "Mega-Disasters." And our beautiful planet of waterways was depicted as ending up almost FUBAR. Anyway, this was all pretty worrying, and I was thinking something should be done before panic sets in and screws up recreational boating before I even get a boat. Boaters are a resourceful lot, and when put to the test usually come through with the answer. Having read this group for about a year now, I've got a pretty good idea of some of the group members' capabilities. Many engineers, mechanics, writers and businessmen participate here, and of course we have many vets. Let's just all pitch in and see what we can come up with. I was Navy, but I do know what Gung Ho means, even if I would never say that. Right. I'll start off. Some years ago - cold war, maybe early '70's - I read a Popular Mechanics article about how we could destroy Ruskie naval capabilities. The plan was simple. Some number of C-130's are filled with pulverized coal dust. The dust is dropped over the arctic and antarctic ice sheets. As the blackened ice ABSORBS the sun's energy, it melts. Sea levels rise, and the Ruskie naval ports become useless. Okay, that's one side of the issue - the wrong side for now, since the ice is already melting, and the Ruskies aren't a threat.. Where I need your help is to come up with something to drop from the C-130's that will REFLECT the sun's energy. This will halt the warming, and get the ice freezing up again. I thought of a few things that might work, like Johnson & Johnson baby powder, Christmas tree foil, etc., and looked in my tackle box - which has a lot of reflective lures - for ideas on materials, but really couldn't come up with anything with which I was confident. I admit I'm not an engineer, but I can caulk. Coal dust is cheap and works. In its own dark way it's "green" too, being naturally occurring. Try to find its counterpart. Now, listen up. You guys come up with the reflective material, get all the logistics worked out with SAC, and launch operation "Freeze." You can rename the mission if you want. Don't worry about my feelings. Knock it around with the team. In the meantime, I'm going to be on eBay looking for somebody selling old Popular Mechanics magazines to find that article about the coal dust mission, because I can't remember the details. So that means I'm commanding operation "Melt." Anybody got a problem with that? Good. I figure I'll find the article in time to stop the Ice Age you've started with operation "Freeze" before the glaciers reach Chicago. Then we join forces and start tweaking the missions. Let's just hope I don't get outbid by some lowlife sniper on eBay. I hate it when that happens, and this is a bad time for that. I don't need to say anything else. You know what this means. To America. To the World. To Boating. Men, let's do it! --Vic |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... I just saw a couple scary hours of History Channel. Hi Vic. I also watched the program on the History Channel. Are you familiar with the concept and operation of proportional controllers? My concern with your plan is this: The earth's environmental system is a very delicate balance but has a lot of inertia. If man-made CO2 emissions resulting from the Industrial Revolution is, indeed, responsible for a global warming crisis, it still has taken about a 100 years to become evident. Introducing an immediate, significant and high impact man-made influence would, IMO, be like making a major change on one of the tuning parameters of a 3-term proportional controller. The result would most likely be throwing the whole environmental balance into wide and wild oscillations that could quickly become uncontrollable. The issue needs to be addressed carefully, thoughtfully and with patience. When mankind messes with Mother Nature, he usually loses. Eisboch |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:01:29 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . I just saw a couple scary hours of History Channel. Hi Vic. I also watched the program on the History Channel. Are you familiar with the concept and operation of proportional controllers? My concern with your plan is this: The earth's environmental system is a very delicate balance but has a lot of inertia. If man-made CO2 emissions resulting from the Industrial Revolution is, indeed, responsible for a global warming crisis, it still has taken about a 100 years to become evident. Introducing an immediate, significant and high impact man-made influence would, IMO, be like making a major change on one of the tuning parameters of a 3-term proportional controller. The result would most likely be throwing the whole environmental balance into wide and wild oscillations that could quickly become uncontrollable. Yes, I have experienced such oscillations in controlling a Cessna flying into Midway Airport in Chicago when crosswinds were strong. I usually crashed, and had to restart MS Flight Simulator. I was using a basic Logitech controller, however. Your concerns are valid, and I wouldn't try what I've proposed without first consulting with Mr Gore and his scientific team. The issue needs to be addressed carefully, thoughtfully and with patience. When mankind messes with Mother Nature, he usually loses. You're quite right. of course. I do think you may have underestimated the real problem, which is not getting sniped on eBay. Be that as it may, I shall proceed in all my endeavors with the utmost caution. Thank you for your concern. Respectfully, --Vic |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:01:29 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I also watched the program on the History Channel. Be that as it may, I shall proceed in all my endeavors with the utmost caution. Thank you for your concern. Respectfully, --Vic Anchor's aweigh. Eisboch |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Why does that matter? People become experts in fields through study and experience outside of educational institutions every day. The most important record we have is the geologic record. And, that record shows a cycle of heating and cooling without the benefit of human caused CO2. We are on an upward swing with the global temperature and we have man tens of thousands of years before we reach the peak which will be followed be a steep decline in global temperature. When making observations of the Earth's temperature you have to look at the other planets and determine if their temperature is constant, falling or rising. Without these observations you cannot ascribe the sum of the Earth's warming to humans alone. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
BAR wrote:
HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Why does that matter? People become experts in fields through study and experience outside of educational institutions every day. It matters. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Neither does Al Gore. Eisboch |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:22:42 -0500, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Hehe. Can't believe this guy founded the Weather Channel, but apparently he did, whatever that means. He was - to me - the biggest jerk on TV here in Chicago, starting that "happy talk" crap on WLS-7 Chicago. That "news" crew were known as clowns here, and compared poorly to Curtis/Jacobson on WBBM-2. I saw Coleman once near the Sears Tower on my commute to Union Station, and could have sworn he gave me the eye. Not making any judgements on his weather expertise. Just that - to me - he was a clown. --Vic |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... I saw Coleman once near the Sears Tower on my commute to Union Station, and could have sworn he gave me the eye. Not making any judgements on his weather expertise. Just that - to me - he was a clown. --Vic Lots of people running around in clown suits now-a-days. Eisboch |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Why does that matter? People become experts in fields through study and experience outside of educational institutions every day. It matters. How? |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Neither does Al Gore. Eisboch Ahh, but Gore typically cites and references others, pedigreed experts, if you will, in pulling together his materials. The weather channel guy sets himself up as an expert. He has no credentials. In fact, I spent about two minutes researching him, and while I may have missed something, it doesn't seem as if he has even a bachelor's degree...in anything. He's not an expert, and no one would accept his credentials. Except, of course, those who cite him to support their anti-global warming nonsense. I could be a TV weatherman. So could almost anyone else. The job does not require much knowledge of weather science. Especially when the weather channel guy got started. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"HK" wrote in message
. .. BAR wrote: HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Why does that matter? People become experts in fields through study and experience outside of educational institutions every day. It matters. Doesn't GWB have a college degree? That doesn't matter, as we have seen. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:43:24 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Lots of people running around in clown suits now-a-days. Which reminds me of a suggestion my best pal in the Navy had to camouflage our destroyer against Ruskie attack. Paint the ship snow white and add white-painted plywood outcroppings so that our destroyer would look like an ice floe. We would have to wear penguin suits when topside. --Vic |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:22:42 -0500, HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Hehe. Can't believe this guy founded the Weather Channel, but apparently he did, whatever that means. He was - to me - the biggest jerk on TV here in Chicago, starting that "happy talk" crap on WLS-7 Chicago. That "news" crew were known as clowns here, and compared poorly to Curtis/Jacobson on WBBM-2. I saw Coleman once near the Sears Tower on my commute to Union Station, and could have sworn he gave me the eye. Not making any judgements on his weather expertise. Just that - to me - he was a clown. --Vic Coleman has no more "weatherman" qualifications than the great Willard Scott, a wonderful personality who got his show-biz start as the original Ronald McDonald. Willard handled the weather on the local NBC affiliate for years and then got promoted to the Today Show's weatherman. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. BAR wrote: HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: You know what this means. Yeah - it's bull****. I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel" has to say about global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ Eisboch The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no university credentials in weather science. Why does that matter? People become experts in fields through study and experience outside of educational institutions every day. It matters. Doesn't GWB have a college degree? That doesn't matter, as we have seen. Bush's degrees were bought and paid for by his grandfather. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"HK" wrote
Ahh, but Gore typically cites and references others, pedigreed experts, if you will, in pulling together his materials. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../11/do1102.xml |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
wrote in message I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! Do The Math 1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. Water Vapor is the major component (95%). 2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03 of the total of all greenhouse gases. 3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of all greenhouse gases. 4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases. 5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2 production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all greenhouse gases. 6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576. A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming. B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a cause of global warming. D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming. Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon of water from a full bathtub? Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL IMPACT on global warming. CONCLUSION There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global warming proponents. They are either: 1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth. 2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it. 3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for personal benefit. The world is warming but not because of man's activity. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"HK" wrote in message . .. Ahh, but Gore typically cites and references others, pedigreed experts, if you will, in pulling together his materials. The weather channel guy sets himself up as an expert. He has no credentials. In fact, I spent about two minutes researching him, and while I may have missed something, it doesn't seem as if he has even a bachelor's degree...in anything. I also quickly searched. No evidence other than he attended college. He's not an expert, and no one would accept his credentials. Except, of course, those who cite him to support their anti-global warming nonsense. It's a time honored spin technique ... you know .... like stating as fact that GWB's grandpa bought his university degrees. Say it often enough and some will assume it's true. Eisboch |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... snip... Some years ago - cold war, maybe early '70's - I read a Popular Mechanics article about how we could destroy Ruskie naval capabilities. The plan was simple. Some number of C-130's are filled with pulverized coal dust. The dust is dropped over the arctic and antarctic ice sheets. As the blackened ice ABSORBS the sun's energy, it melts. Sea levels rise, and the Ruskie naval ports become useless. Okay, that's one side of the issue - the wrong side for now, since the ice is already melting, and the Ruskies aren't a threat.. Where I need your help is to come up with something to drop from the C-130's that will REFLECT the sun's energy. This will halt the warming, and get the ice freezing up again. I thought of a few things that might work, like Johnson & Johnson baby powder, Christmas tree foil, etc., and looked in my tackle box - which has a lot of reflective lures - for ideas on materials, but really couldn't come up with anything with which I was confident. I admit I'm not an engineer, but I can caulk. Coal dust is cheap and works. In its own dark way it's "green" too, being naturally occurring. Try to find its counterpart. Now, listen up. You guys come up with the reflective material, get all the logistics worked out with SAC, and launch operation "Freeze." snip --Vic Good idea... we'll build a reflectivecanopy over all the developed areas of the world...just imagine, no more rain in the cities...the water would be collected 100 feet above the ground and channeled directly to the sewers. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! Do The Math 1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. Water Vapor is the major component (95%). 2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03 of the total of all greenhouse gases. 3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of all greenhouse gases. 4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases. 5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2 production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all greenhouse gases. 6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576. A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming. B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a cause of global warming. D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming. Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon of water from a full bathtub? Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL IMPACT on global warming. CONCLUSION There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global warming proponents. They are either: 1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth. 2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it. 3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for personal benefit. The world is warming but not because of man's activity. Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make your point. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
wrote in message oups.com... On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote: wrote in message I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! Do The Math 1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. Water Vapor is the major component (95%). 2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03 of the total of all greenhouse gases. 3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of all greenhouse gases. 4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases. 5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2 production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all greenhouse gases. 6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576. A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming. B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a cause of global warming. D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming. Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon of water from a full bathtub? Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL IMPACT on global warming. CONCLUSION There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global warming proponents. They are either: 1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth. 2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it. 3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for personal benefit. The world is warming but not because of man's activity. Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make your point. I gave you the data- prove any of it wrong. |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:14:29 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | wrote in message | | I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! | |Do The Math |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). |2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03 |of the total of all greenhouse gases. |3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of |all greenhouse gases. |4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four |millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases. |5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2 |production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all |greenhouse gases. |6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim |standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576. | |A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global |warming. |B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes |global warming. |C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a |cause of global warming. |D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US |produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming. | |Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and |give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon |of water from a full bathtub? | |Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols |results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL |IMPACT on global warming. | |CONCLUSION | |There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global |warming proponents. |They are either: | |1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth. |2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it. |3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for |personal benefit. | |The world is warming but not because of man's activity. Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? Trivial Pursuit: If I believe that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s, of what religion am I a member? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:14:29 GMT, BillP penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | wrote in message | | I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand! | |Do The Math |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). |2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03 |of the total of all greenhouse gases. |3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of |all greenhouse gases. |4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four |millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases. |5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2 |production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all |greenhouse gases. |6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim |standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576. | |A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global |warming. |B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes |global warming. |C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a |cause of global warming. |D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US |produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming. | |Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and |give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon |of water from a full bathtub? | |Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols |results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL |IMPACT on global warming. | |CONCLUSION | |There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global |warming proponents. |They are either: | |1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth. |2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it. |3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for |personal benefit. | |The world is warming but not because of man's activity. Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? Trivial Pursuit: If I believe that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s, of what religion am I a member? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Gene Kearns" wrote in Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion. Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time. 1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. Water Vapor is the major component (95%). Is this a true or false statement ? |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:44:15 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | |"Gene Kearns" wrote in | | Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false | dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? | |My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion. | |Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time. | | |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). | |Is this a true or false statement ? | Do you accept the entire FAQ document published by NOAA, that suggests that CO2 is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, as a factual document? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:44:15 GMT, BillP penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | |"Gene Kearns" wrote in | | Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false | dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? | |My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion. | |Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time. | | |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). | |Is this a true or false statement ? | Do you accept the entire FAQ document published by NOAA, that suggests that CO2 is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, as a factual document? Yes I agree that CO2 (approx 3.5% of all greenhouse gases) is the second most abundant greenhouse gas behind water vapor, but back to my question- 1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). True or false? |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Nov 12, 12:42 pm, "BillP" wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:44:15 GMT, BillP penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | |"Gene Kearns" wrote in | | Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false | dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? | |My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion. | |Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time. | | |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). | |Is this a true or false statement ? | Do you accept the entire FAQ document published by NOAA, that suggests that CO2 is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, as a factual document? Yes I agree that CO2 (approx 3.5% of all greenhouse gases) is the second most abundant greenhouse gas behind water vapor, but back to my question- 1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). True or false?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you have any idea why? |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:42:28 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | |"Gene Kearns" wrote in message .. . | On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:44:15 GMT, BillP penned the following well | considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | | | | |"Gene Kearns" wrote in | | | | Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false | | dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? | | | |My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion. | | | |Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time. | | | | | |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. | |Water Vapor is the major component (95%). | | | |Is this a true or false statement ? | | | | Do you accept the entire FAQ document published by NOAA, that suggests | that CO2 is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, as a factual | document? | | |Yes I agree that CO2 (approx 3.5% of all greenhouse gases) is the second |most abundant greenhouse gas behind water vapor, but back to my question- | |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas. ||Water Vapor is the major component (95%). | |True or false? | Nice try, but either you accept the document as factual or not. I'm not going to engage is some sort of pointless verbal excursion with you while you cherry pick passages, from however many documents, you feel support your pre-defined position. -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
wrote
You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you have any idea why? Buoyancy. (Duh) |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Gene Kearns" Nice try, but either you accept the document as factual or not. I'm not going to engage is some sort of pointless verbal excursion with you while you cherry pick passages, from however many documents, you feel support your pre-defined position. LOL, bye............ |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
wrote in message You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you have proof of this? |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... a comment not worthy of repeating. Welcome to my permanent bozo bin, Fred. You are the first. I hope your busy hand falls off. Eisboch |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... a comment not worthy of repeating. Welcome to my permanent bozo bin, Fred. You are the first. I hope your busy hand falls off. Eisboch Heh....my news server didn't show his message, but so what? Was it a string OF oBScenITiES indicating that he was off his thorazine again? |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, "Ernest Scribbler"
wrote: wrote You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you have any idea why? Buoyancy. (Duh) I guess that you aren't bright enough or just don't want to think about things IN CONTEXT, eh? |
OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
On Nov 12, 2:34 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote: In messagenews:qo5hj3t2c7bvhid1joj28lvenotn7l2g1e@4ax .com, Gene Kearns sprach forth the following: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:42:28 GMT, BillP penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | |"Gene Kearns" wrote in message . .. | On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:44:15 GMT, BillP penned the following well | considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | | | | |"Gene Kearns" wrote in | | | | Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false | | dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more? | | | |My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion. | | | |Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time. | | | | | |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse | |gas. Water Vapor is the major component (95%). | | | |Is this a true or false statement ? | | | | Do you accept the entire FAQ document published by NOAA, that | suggests that CO2 is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, as a | factual document? | | |Yes I agree that CO2 (approx 3.5% of all greenhouse gases) is the |second most abundant greenhouse gas behind water vapor, but back to my |question- | |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse |gas. ||Water Vapor is the major component (95%). | |True or false? | Nice try, but either you accept the document as factual or not. I'm not going to engage is some sort of pointless verbal excursion with you while you cherry pick passages, from however many documents, you feel support your pre-defined position. What a ****ing pussy. With the world's ugliest wife.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You hide behind usenet calling people names, saying crappy things about their families, etc, again all the while hiding like a scared little punk, then have the audacity to call someone else a pussy? Look in the mirror, lowlife. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com