On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:50:11 GMT, "BillP"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere,
and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of
all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.
"And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

How many do you require?

Did you know termites alone produce more carbon dioxide then all the fossil
fuels burned in the whole world in a year ?

Dude - cow farts create more problems than cars do.

If we could only get the cows to stop farting, we'd be all set. :)

On Nov 19, 11:50 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere,
and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of
all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.
"And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

How many do you require?

Did you know termites alone produce more carbon dioxide then all the fossil
fuels burned in the whole world in a year ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Irrelevent. Do you remember me saying anything about BALANCE??

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 11:50 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the
atmosphere,
and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons
per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent
of
all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively
small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he
said.
"And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the
rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

How many do you require?

Did you know termites alone produce more carbon dioxide then all the
fossil
fuels burned in the whole world in a year ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Irrelevent. Do you remember me saying anything about BALANCE??


Lets stick with one subject at a time.

Do you now agree now that humans are then responsible for a comparatively
small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric CO2?

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere,
and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of
all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.
"And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

That was not "one mans" opinion, he was quoting from a report. Read for
content.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere,
and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of
all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively
small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.
"And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

That was not "one mans" opinion, he was quoting from a report. Read for
content.


Maybe he doesn't trust the IPCC

"BillP" wrote in message
news:3Hk0j.12253$e35.7676@trnddc08...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the
atmosphere, and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent
of all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively
small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.
"And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

That was not "one mans" opinion, he was quoting from a report. Read for
content.


Maybe he doesn't trust the IPCC

This is the guy that just couldn't understand how a bank could have profits
in the 30% range when home mortgage rates were only 5%.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:45:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message


http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???


We should all keep an open mind. I posted the link to this before, but
here's part one again.
Pretty convincing argument and worth watching/listening to ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Eisboch


Thanks, I'd lost that.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:3Hk0j.12253$e35.7676@trnddc08...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the
atmosphere, and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons
per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent
of all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively
small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he
said. "And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the
rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

That was not "one mans" opinion, he was quoting from a report. Read for
content.


Maybe he doesn't trust the IPCC

This is the guy that just couldn't understand how a bank could have
profits in the 30% range when home mortgage rates were only 5%.


I missed that one.