More on man made global warming
 

UN Panel: Climate Change Accelerating
By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Printable VersionEmail This Article del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Reddit Slashdot
Fark
Newsvine
Google Bookmarks
(12) Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial
(11-17) 05:43 PST VALENCIA, Spain (AP) --


The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a
Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released
Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of
extinction for some species.


As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will
suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's megacities will be at
great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect
extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and
hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, the report from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says.


U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said climate change imperils "the
most precious treasures of our planet."


The potential impact of global warming is "so severe and so sweeping
that only urgent, global action will do," Ban told the IPCC after it
issued its fourth and final report this year.


The IPCC adopted the report, along with a summary, after five days of
sometimes tense negotiations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the
worst catastrophes -- and various possible outcomes, depending on how
quickly and decisively action is taken.


The document says recent research has heightened concern that the poor
and the elderly will suffer most from climate change; that hunger and
disease will be more common; that droughts, floods and heat waves will
afflict the world's poorest regions; and that more animal and plant
species will vanish.


The Summary for Policymakers, and the longer version, called the
synthesis report, distill thousands of pages of data and computer
models from six years of research compiled by the IPCC.


The information is expected to guide policy makers meeting in Bali,
Indonesia, next month to discuss an agreement to succeed the Kyoto
Protocol, which expires in 2012.


The panel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year along with
former Vice President Al Gore for their efforts to raise awareness
about the effects of climate change.


The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its
conclusions. While it does not commit governments to a specific course
of action, it provides a common scientific baseline for the political
talks.


The U.N. says a new global plan must be in place by 2009 to ensure a
smooth transition after the expiration of the Kyoto terms, which
require 36 industrial countries to radically reduce their carbon
emissions by 2012.


"There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change," Ban
said. He said a new agreement should provide funding to help poor
countries adopt clean energy and to adapt to changing climates.


The report says emissions of carbon, which comes primarily from fossil
fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that. Otherwise the
consequences could be "disastrous," said IPCC chairman Rajendra
Pachauri.


In the best-case scenario, temperatures will continue to rise from
carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories
were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea
level will reach as high as 4 1/2 feet higher than the preindustrial
period, or about 1850.


"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," said
Pachauri. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists couldn't
even predict by how many meters the seas will rise, drowning coastal
cities.


Yet differences remain stark on how to control carbon emissions.


While the European Union has taken the lead in enforcing the carbon
emission targets outlined in Kyoto, the United States opted out of the
1997 accord.


President Bush described it as flawed because major developing
countries such as India and China, which are large carbon emitters,
were excluded from any obligations. He also favors a voluntary
agreement.


Sharon Hays, a White House science official and head of the U.S.
delegation, said the certainty of climate change was clearer now than
when Bush rejected Kyoto.


"What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is
happening," she said in a conference call to reporters late Friday.
"Back in 2001 the IPCC report said it is likely that humans were
having an impact on the climate," but confidence in human
responsibility had increased since then.


"What's new is the clarity of the signal, how clear the scientific
message is," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official.
"The politicians have no excuse not to act."


Opening with a sweeping statement directed at climate change skeptics,
the summary declares that climate systems have already begun to
change.


Unless action is taken, human activity could lead to "abrupt and
irreversible changes" that would make the planet unrecognizable.


Advocacy groups hailed the report as indispensable for the 10,000
delegates expected at Bali.


"We expect to see their personal copies of the Synthesis Report return
from Bali, battered and worn from frequent use, with paragraphs
underlined and notes in the margin," said Stephanie Tunmore of
Greenpeace.

More on man made global warming
 

Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary, after
summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the data
used or the supporting calculations?"

More on man made global warming
 

"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"


Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they shouldn't.

Eisboch

More on man made global warming
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"


Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch



"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions."

More on man made global warming
 

On Nov 17, 11:49 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch

"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The REPORT, not the data. Anyone who thinks that emitting millions of
tons of CO2, heavy metals, thousands of different compounds, etc. into
the air every day isn't having an adverse affect on the Earth is a
moron.

More on man made global warming
 

wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 11:49 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he
hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch

"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its
conclusions."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The REPORT, not the data.

Do you think it's solid science for a group of scientists and countries to
accept a report where the underlying scientific data is not released, not
even the peer reviewers?


Anyone who thinks that emitting millions of
tons of CO2, heavy metals, thousands of different compounds, etc. into
the air every day isn't having an adverse affect on the Earth is a
moron.

How do you propose we stop the number 1 polluter (the Earth) from emitting
these pollutants?

More on man made global warming
 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:01:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

UN Panel: Climate Change Accelerating

That's all you needed to know about this one.

Truth, veracity and unassailable "facts".

More on man made global warming
 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:35:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they shouldn't.

Exactly. In particular when 50% of the "scientists" are people nobody
who study climatology have ever heard of.

Just wait until they figure out that it's really cosmic rays and lack
of solar output to deflect them that's causing all the ruckus.

More on man made global warming
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:01:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

UN Panel: Climate Change Accelerating

That's all you needed to know about this one.

Truth, veracity and unassailable "facts".

Big words for that guy....

More on man made global warming
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:28:21 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after
summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data
used or the supporting calculations?"

You mean like.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21795734/


To be expected from politicians, not from scientists.

Why do you think the IPCC hiding the data from scientists and peer
reviewers?

More on man made global warming
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:35:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...

Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they shouldn't.


Exactly. In particular when 50% of the "scientists" are people nobody
who study climatology have ever heard of.

Just wait until they figure out that it's really cosmic rays and lack
of solar output to deflect them that's causing all the ruckus.


http://www.jbs.org/node/6266

More on man made global warming
 

On Nov 17, 1:04 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 17, 11:49 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he
hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch

"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its
conclusions."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The REPORT, not the data.

Do you think it's solid science for a group of scientists and countries to
accept a report where the underlying scientific data is not released, not
even the peer reviewers?

Anyone who thinks that emitting millions of
tons of CO2, heavy metals, thousands of different compounds, etc. into
the air every day isn't having an adverse affect on the Earth is a
moron.

How do you propose we stop the number 1 polluter (the Earth) from emitting
these pollutants?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's where the idiots always come up with that bull****. The earth
itself can take care of it's self. Everything in balance, do you
understand what balance is? Besides, the earth is not the #1
polluter.

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AFP/2004/...79988?&pbl=222

http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/domestic-policy/environment/air-pollution/air-pollution-$366647.htm

But then again, you wouldn't let facts get in the way of your crap,
huh?

More on man made global warming
 

On Nov 17, 4:52 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:01:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
UN Panel: Climate Change Accelerating

That's all you needed to know about this one.

Truth, veracity and unassailable "facts".

Well, then, show me some "facts" that says that the millions of pounds
of pollutants spewed into the air every single day is having no affect
on the planet.............I'm expecting crickets...

More on man made global warming
 

wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 1:04 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 17, 11:49 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases
summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he
hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of
*unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see
the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch

"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its
conclusions."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The REPORT, not the data.

Do you think it's solid science for a group of scientists and countries
to
accept a report where the underlying scientific data is not released, not
even the peer reviewers?

Anyone who thinks that emitting millions of
tons of CO2, heavy metals, thousands of different compounds, etc. into
the air every day isn't having an adverse affect on the Earth is a
moron.

How do you propose we stop the number 1 polluter (the Earth) from
emitting
these pollutants?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's where the idiots always come up with that bull****. The earth
itself can take care of it's self. Everything in balance, do you
understand what balance is? Besides, the earth is not the #1
polluter.


http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AFP/2004/...79988?&pbl=222

http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/domestic-policy/environment/air-pollution/air-pollution-$366647.htm

But then again, you wouldn't let facts get in the way of your crap,
huh?


I missed in the articles where it said man made CO2 was more than natural
sources- can you point me to it?

More on man made global warming
 

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:28:34 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 17, 1:04 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 17, 11:49 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he
hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch

"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its
conclusions."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The REPORT, not the data.

Do you think it's solid science for a group of scientists and countries to
accept a report where the underlying scientific data is not released, not
even the peer reviewers?

Anyone who thinks that emitting millions of
tons of CO2, heavy metals, thousands of different compounds, etc. into
the air every day isn't having an adverse affect on the Earth is a
moron.

How do you propose we stop the number 1 polluter (the Earth) from emitting
these pollutants?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's where the idiots always come up with that bull****. The earth
itself can take care of it's self. Everything in balance, do you
understand what balance is? Besides, the earth is not the #1
polluter.

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AFP/2004/...79988?&pbl=222

http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/domestic-policy/environment/air-pollution/air-pollution-$366647.htm

But then again, you wouldn't let facts get in the way of your crap,
huh?

More reasons to go nuclear.

Your first site has three different articles claiming the 'most
pollutants'. Who finally won the contest?

More on man made global warming
 

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

...





On Nov 17, 1:04 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 17, 11:49 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases
summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he
hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of
*unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see
the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch

"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its
conclusions."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The REPORT, not the data.

Do you think it's solid science for a group of scientists and countries
to
accept a report where the underlying scientific data is not released, not
even the peer reviewers?

Anyone who thinks that emitting millions of
tons of CO2, heavy metals, thousands of different compounds, etc. into
the air every day isn't having an adverse affect on the Earth is a
moron.

How do you propose we stop the number 1 polluter (the Earth) from
emitting
these pollutants?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's where the idiots always come up with that bull****. The earth
itself can take care of it's self. Everything in balance, do you
understand what balance is? Besides, the earth is not the #1
polluter.
http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AFP/2004/...79988?&pbl=222

http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-brie...environment/ai...

But then again, you wouldn't let facts get in the way of your crap,
huh?

I missed in the articles where it said man made CO2 was more than natural
sources- can you point me to it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

More on man made global warming
 

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

More on man made global warming
 

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???

More on man made global warming
 

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

More on man made global warming
 

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 ?

More on man made global warming
 

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. :)

More on man made global warming
 

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??

More on man made global warming
 

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?

More on man made global warming
 

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.

More on man made global warming
 

"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

More on man made global warming
 

"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%.

More on man made global warming
 

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.

More on man made global warming
 

"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.