Roy L. Fuchs

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:03:00 -0500, "Brian" <nobody@yahoo.com> Gave us:

>not the right place to post this crap.

Not the right place to attempt to be accepted as a netkopp...

SC Tom

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:25ipa2dr49td06lee34ck5fenaooc9942h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:03:00 -0500, "Brian" <nobody@yahoo.com> Gave us:
>
>>not the right place to post this crap.
>
> Not the right place to attempt to be accepted as a netkopp...

This from someone who called someone else a "Top posting twit"? LOL!!

Global warming must be true- it's a lot warmer today than it was 3 months
ago!!

SC Tom

SC Tom

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:25ipa2dr49td06lee34ck5fenaooc9942h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:03:00 -0500, "Brian" <nobody@yahoo.com> Gave us:
>
>>not the right place to post this crap.
>
> Not the right place to attempt to be accepted as a netkopp...

This from someone who called someone else a "Top posting twit"? LOL!!

Global warming must be true- it's a lot warmer today than it was 3 months
ago!!

SC Tom

SC Tom

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:25ipa2dr49td06lee34ck5fenaooc9942h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:03:00 -0500, "Brian" <nobody@yahoo.com> Gave us:
>
>>not the right place to post this crap.
>
> Not the right place to attempt to be accepted as a netkopp...

This from someone who called someone else a "Top posting twit"? LOL!!

Global warming must be true- it's a lot warmer today than it was 3 months
ago!!

SC Tom

Jonny

<kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152131732.334174.320190@j8g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Our only hope for "solving" global warming will be through technology
> that is not even ON today's drawing boards. So, relax. Enjoy life if
> you're Western or Japanese; hate life if you're third world; and strive
> to reach Western levels if you're China, India, Brazil or a few other
> good-life wannabees. Whether GW is real or fiction or someplace in
> between, the world --if not humankind--will get through global warming,
> sooner or later!
>
> =====
>
> "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"
>
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> The Washington Post
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13
>
> "Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the
> next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't
> do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may
> even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to
> avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem,
> the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . .
> Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national
> hypocrisy.''
> -- This column, July 1997
>
>
> Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself
> at length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an
> "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a
> path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't
> know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major
> technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was
> obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.
>
>>From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4
> billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per
> person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse
> gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in
> 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more
> energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty --
> and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth.
> With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than
> double by 2050.
>
> Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the
> world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways:
> Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or
> no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China,
> for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new
> report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the
> difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections
> cited above come from the report).
>
> The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved
> and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In
> electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most
> greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent --
> and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere.
> Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables"
> (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity
> output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
>
> Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government
> regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of
> higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet,
> the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological
> change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today.
> The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
>
> Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge
> between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse
> gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the
> global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report
> indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse
> emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for
> decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they
> presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent
> higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45
> percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is
> uncertain; so are the consequences.
>
> I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.
>
> No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth
> and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel)
> that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're
> "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto
> Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that
> didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25
> percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough
> policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may
> overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
>
> Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy.
> Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts
> 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their
> greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global
> warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs
> -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing
> oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical
> conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only
> salvation is new technology.
>
> I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had
> never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more
> plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's
> an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I
> gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is
> correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find
> ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
> Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse
> gases?
>
> The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a
> moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient
> truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're
> helpless.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400789.html
>

We're just now realizing the "benefit" of long term increasing use of fossil
fuels to the world's average temperature. It isn't going to change tomorrow
or a few years from now, no matter what we do. Ignoring it won't make it go
away either. Maybe your kids might believe your story, but they will pay
for it if the same things continue to be done the same way if that's any
incentive. But, in light of other things that require change that may
inconvenience, I doubt it.
--
Jonny

Jonny

<kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152131732.334174.320190@j8g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Our only hope for "solving" global warming will be through technology
> that is not even ON today's drawing boards. So, relax. Enjoy life if
> you're Western or Japanese; hate life if you're third world; and strive
> to reach Western levels if you're China, India, Brazil or a few other
> good-life wannabees. Whether GW is real or fiction or someplace in
> between, the world --if not humankind--will get through global warming,
> sooner or later!
>
> =====
>
> "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"
>
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> The Washington Post
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13
>
> "Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the
> next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't
> do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may
> even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to
> avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem,
> the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . .
> Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national
> hypocrisy.''
> -- This column, July 1997
>
>
> Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself
> at length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an
> "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a
> path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't
> know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major
> technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was
> obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.
>
>>From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4
> billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per
> person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse
> gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in
> 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more
> energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty --
> and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth.
> With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than
> double by 2050.
>
> Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the
> world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways:
> Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or
> no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China,
> for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new
> report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the
> difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections
> cited above come from the report).
>
> The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved
> and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In
> electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most
> greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent --
> and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere.
> Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables"
> (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity
> output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
>
> Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government
> regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of
> higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet,
> the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological
> change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today.
> The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
>
> Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge
> between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse
> gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the
> global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report
> indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse
> emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for
> decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they
> presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent
> higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45
> percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is
> uncertain; so are the consequences.
>
> I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.
>
> No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth
> and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel)
> that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're
> "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto
> Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that
> didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25
> percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough
> policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may
> overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
>
> Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy.
> Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts
> 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their
> greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global
> warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs
> -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing
> oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical
> conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only
> salvation is new technology.
>
> I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had
> never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more
> plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's
> an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I
> gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is
> correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find
> ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
> Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse
> gases?
>
> The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a
> moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient
> truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're
> helpless.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400789.html
>

We're just now realizing the "benefit" of long term increasing use of fossil
fuels to the world's average temperature. It isn't going to change tomorrow
or a few years from now, no matter what we do. Ignoring it won't make it go
away either. Maybe your kids might believe your story, but they will pay
for it if the same things continue to be done the same way if that's any
incentive. But, in light of other things that require change that may
inconvenience, I doubt it.
--
Jonny

Jonny

<kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152131732.334174.320190@j8g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Our only hope for "solving" global warming will be through technology
> that is not even ON today's drawing boards. So, relax. Enjoy life if
> you're Western or Japanese; hate life if you're third world; and strive
> to reach Western levels if you're China, India, Brazil or a few other
> good-life wannabees. Whether GW is real or fiction or someplace in
> between, the world --if not humankind--will get through global warming,
> sooner or later!
>
> =====
>
> "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"
>
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> The Washington Post
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13
>
> "Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the
> next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't
> do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may
> even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to
> avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem,
> the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . .
> Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national
> hypocrisy.''
> -- This column, July 1997
>
>
> Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself
> at length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an
> "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a
> path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't
> know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major
> technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was
> obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.
>
>>From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4
> billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per
> person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse
> gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in
> 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more
> energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty --
> and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth.
> With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than
> double by 2050.
>
> Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the
> world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways:
> Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or
> no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China,
> for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new
> report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the
> difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections
> cited above come from the report).
>
> The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved
> and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In
> electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most
> greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent --
> and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere.
> Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables"
> (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity
> output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
>
> Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government
> regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of
> higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet,
> the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological
> change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today.
> The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
>
> Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge
> between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse
> gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the
> global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report
> indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse
> emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for
> decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they
> presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent
> higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45
> percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is
> uncertain; so are the consequences.
>
> I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.
>
> No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth
> and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel)
> that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're
> "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto
> Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that
> didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25
> percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough
> policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may
> overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
>
> Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy.
> Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts
> 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their
> greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global
> warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs
> -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing
> oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical
> conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only
> salvation is new technology.
>
> I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had
> never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more
> plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's
> an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I
> gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is
> correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find
> ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
> Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse
> gases?
>
> The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a
> moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient
> truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're
> helpless.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400789.html
>

We're just now realizing the "benefit" of long term increasing use of fossil
fuels to the world's average temperature. It isn't going to change tomorrow
or a few years from now, no matter what we do. Ignoring it won't make it go
away either. Maybe your kids might believe your story, but they will pay
for it if the same things continue to be done the same way if that's any
incentive. But, in light of other things that require change that may
inconvenience, I doubt it.
--
Jonny

Mike Hunter

Why then has it gotten smaller and then larger on occasion? How long has
the hole been there? 20 years, 200 years, 2,000,000? Who knows? How do
they know?

If ozone is 'good' why do we fine companies, like steel companies the use
electric furnaces, that create ozone? Why do we not get mad at God for the
electrical storms that produces most of the ozone? Why does it smell so
nice after a storm passes?


mike hunt


"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:nkhpa2ll7n8snqtm5ggfvesbhos777r0sq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:46:45 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com Gave us:
>
>>The only thing more arrogant than thinking man caused global warming
>>is thinking man can stop it.
>
> I think we could fix a hole as it were. The HUGE Ozone hole over
> Antarctica. That hole was seen from an early shuttle mission (I have
> the Laser Disc around here somewhere). They ALSO saw a HUGE Chlorine
> cloud right there with it. A single chlorine molecule can break up
> several Ozone molecules. We could make huge dirigibles with Chlorine
> Scrubbers on them to fly around down ther and scoop up all the
> Chlorine.
>
> Then, it wouldn't matter how much we are making up here.. it will
> all migrate to the southern hemisphere, and get scooped up. VIOLA,
> all the planet's miseries are gone.
>
>>We can throw another virgin in the volcano if we like but we won't
>>really change nature.
>
> I guess what I just described could be thought of in that way...
>
> By the way, that is a serious suggestion for a fix.
> Well... one fix... for one problem.

Mike Hunter

Why then has it gotten smaller and then larger on occasion? How long has
the hole been there? 20 years, 200 years, 2,000,000? Who knows? How do
they know?

If ozone is 'good' why do we fine companies, like steel companies the use
electric furnaces, that create ozone? Why do we not get mad at God for the
electrical storms that produces most of the ozone? Why does it smell so
nice after a storm passes?


mike hunt


"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:nkhpa2ll7n8snqtm5ggfvesbhos777r0sq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:46:45 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com Gave us:
>
>>The only thing more arrogant than thinking man caused global warming
>>is thinking man can stop it.
>
> I think we could fix a hole as it were. The HUGE Ozone hole over
> Antarctica. That hole was seen from an early shuttle mission (I have
> the Laser Disc around here somewhere). They ALSO saw a HUGE Chlorine
> cloud right there with it. A single chlorine molecule can break up
> several Ozone molecules. We could make huge dirigibles with Chlorine
> Scrubbers on them to fly around down ther and scoop up all the
> Chlorine.
>
> Then, it wouldn't matter how much we are making up here.. it will
> all migrate to the southern hemisphere, and get scooped up. VIOLA,
> all the planet's miseries are gone.
>
>>We can throw another virgin in the volcano if we like but we won't
>>really change nature.
>
> I guess what I just described could be thought of in that way...
>
> By the way, that is a serious suggestion for a fix.
> Well... one fix... for one problem.

Mike Hunter

Why then has it gotten smaller and then larger on occasion? How long has
the hole been there? 20 years, 200 years, 2,000,000? Who knows? How do
they know?

If ozone is 'good' why do we fine companies, like steel companies the use
electric furnaces, that create ozone? Why do we not get mad at God for the
electrical storms that produces most of the ozone? Why does it smell so
nice after a storm passes?


mike hunt


"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:nkhpa2ll7n8snqtm5ggfvesbhos777r0sq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:46:45 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com Gave us:
>
>>The only thing more arrogant than thinking man caused global warming
>>is thinking man can stop it.
>
> I think we could fix a hole as it were. The HUGE Ozone hole over
> Antarctica. That hole was seen from an early shuttle mission (I have
> the Laser Disc around here somewhere). They ALSO saw a HUGE Chlorine
> cloud right there with it. A single chlorine molecule can break up
> several Ozone molecules. We could make huge dirigibles with Chlorine
> Scrubbers on them to fly around down ther and scoop up all the
> Chlorine.
>
> Then, it wouldn't matter how much we are making up here.. it will
> all migrate to the southern hemisphere, and get scooped up. VIOLA,
> all the planet's miseries are gone.
>
>>We can throw another virgin in the volcano if we like but we won't
>>really change nature.
>
> I guess what I just described could be thought of in that way...
>
> By the way, that is a serious suggestion for a fix.
> Well... one fix... for one problem.

grinder

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
news:079oa2hiumfe2dfq1635vh9rr884ltjmud@4ax.com...
> The only thing more arrogant than thinking man caused global warming
> is thinking man can stop it.
>
> We can throw another virgin in the volcano if we like but we won't
> really change nature.

So you say there is no way man can reduce the 77 million TONS of carbon
dioxide being injected into the atmosphere every day.

Of course, you agree with those commercials that carbon dioxide is natural
and part of life. In that case I would suggest you prove it by staying a
couple of hours in a room filled with the gas.

grinder

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
news:079oa2hiumfe2dfq1635vh9rr884ltjmud@4ax.com...
> The only thing more arrogant than thinking man caused global warming
> is thinking man can stop it.
>
> We can throw another virgin in the volcano if we like but we won't
> really change nature.

So you say there is no way man can reduce the 77 million TONS of carbon
dioxide being injected into the atmosphere every day.

Of course, you agree with those commercials that carbon dioxide is natural
and part of life. In that case I would suggest you prove it by staying a
couple of hours in a room filled with the gas.

grinder

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
news:079oa2hiumfe2dfq1635vh9rr884ltjmud@4ax.com...
> The only thing more arrogant than thinking man caused global warming
> is thinking man can stop it.
>
> We can throw another virgin in the volcano if we like but we won't
> really change nature.

So you say there is no way man can reduce the 77 million TONS of carbon
dioxide being injected into the atmosphere every day.

Of course, you agree with those commercials that carbon dioxide is natural
and part of life. In that case I would suggest you prove it by staying a
couple of hours in a room filled with the gas.

grinder

Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man injects
into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
that amount can be reduced is laughable.

grinder

Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man injects
into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
that amount can be reduced is laughable.