<steve@websitewarehouse.com> wrote:

..... Earth's temperatures and weather patterns are cyclical.
They could be mildly and temporarily affected by volcanic
eruptions or thermonuclear war. But global temperatures are
not set by man and can not be changed by man. Al Gore is
nothing more than a doomsday prophet.
__________________________________________________ _

It is laughably arrogant for puny man to imagine he has the
power to compete with the forces of nature. It reminds me
of the joke about the masturbating flea floating down the
river on his back, shouting, "Raise the drawbridge!"

Rodan.
__________________________________________________ _


_____________ Coconuts in Wyoming?
_____By Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com
_______________ June 17, 2004

As natural summer seasonal temperatures rise, global-warming
activists dramatize their cause. Global-climate worry-warts met
this week to convulse about the Bush administration's refusal to
embrace the Kyoto global-warming treaty which clamps down on
emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2. They hope to
pressure politicians into policy changes. Harvard geochemist
Daniel Schrag said, "It depends on the next election. We can't
expect to change the minds of this administration.

Schrag gave alarmist factoids about atmospheric CO2. He said,
''The current CO2 concentration of 380 ppm is higher than it has
been for 430,000 years. In the next 100 years, unless immediate
action is taken, CO2 levels will rise to 800-1,000 ppm. The last
time CO2 was that high was the Eocene Period, 46 million years
ago. Then there were palm trees in Wyoming, crocodiles in the
Arctic and sea level was at least 300 feet higher than today."

IS ATMOSPHERIC CO2 all that separates us from Eskimo crocodile
wrestling? Hardly. The greenhouse effect (atmospheric warming
from trapping of solar energy) keeps Earth's average temperature
at about 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Without the greenhouse effect,
the Earth's average temperature would be about zero degrees.

About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to WATER VAPOR
of natural origin. Naturally occurring CO2 contributes another 2.39
per cent. Methane, nitrous oxide other gases contribute about 1.5
per cent. Human-caused gases contribute about 0.3 per cent,
including human-caused CO2 at 0.11 per cent.

so about 99.7 percent of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to
nature and about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has
nothing to do with CO2 emissions from human activity.

If human-caused CO2 levels were to triple or quadruple they would
have little effect on global climate. If the CO2-reductions called
for by the Kyoto treaty were implemented, human greenhouse
contributions would be reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric
physicist Fred Singer says, ''This would have an imperceptible effect
on future temperatures - 1/20 th of a degree by the year 2050."

The Kyoto protocol requires cutting energy use by 30 percent by
2010, with inestimably bad economic impacts. It is easy to see
why U.S. politicians run away from the Kyoto protocol. We don't
need to worry about coconuts in Wyoming so much as the nutty
global warmers who meet each summer in Washington, D.C.
__________________________________________________ ____

 

"Rodan" <Rodan@verizon.NOT> wrote in message news:h4Qtg.17$Oj.16@trnddc05...
> <steve@websitewarehouse.com> wrote:
>
> .... Earth's temperatures and weather patterns are cyclical.
> They could be mildly and temporarily affected by volcanic
> eruptions or thermonuclear war. But global temperatures are
> not set by man and can not be changed by man. Al Gore is
> nothing more than a doomsday prophet.

More like a man with masses of data to back him up.

Jeff

 

"Rodan" <Rodan@verizon.NOT> wrote in message news:h4Qtg.17$Oj.16@trnddc05...
> <steve@websitewarehouse.com> wrote:
>
> .... Earth's temperatures and weather patterns are cyclical.
> They could be mildly and temporarily affected by volcanic
> eruptions or thermonuclear war. But global temperatures are
> not set by man and can not be changed by man. Al Gore is
> nothing more than a doomsday prophet.

More like a man with masses of data to back him up.

Jeff

 

"Rodan" <Rodan@verizon.NOT> wrote in message news:h4Qtg.17$Oj.16@trnddc05...
> <steve@websitewarehouse.com> wrote:
>
> .... Earth's temperatures and weather patterns are cyclical.
> They could be mildly and temporarily affected by volcanic
> eruptions or thermonuclear war. But global temperatures are
> not set by man and can not be changed by man. Al Gore is
> nothing more than a doomsday prophet.

More like a man with masses of data to back him up.

Jeff

 

Rodan wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" wrote:
>
> I'll try to remember that next time, OK?
> __________________________________
>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:
>
> The only thing worse than a ing retard
> is a blatant ing retard that acts stupid
> by choice. You are that retard.
> _________________________________
>
> In some minds, profanity trumps logic.

You forgot "small" in front of "minds."

Matt

 

Rodan wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" wrote:
>
> I'll try to remember that next time, OK?
> __________________________________
>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:
>
> The only thing worse than a ing retard
> is a blatant ing retard that acts stupid
> by choice. You are that retard.
> _________________________________
>
> In some minds, profanity trumps logic.

You forgot "small" in front of "minds."

Matt

 

Rodan wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" wrote:
>
> I'll try to remember that next time, OK?
> __________________________________
>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:
>
> The only thing worse than a ing retard
> is a blatant ing retard that acts stupid
> by choice. You are that retard.
> _________________________________
>
> In some minds, profanity trumps logic.

You forgot "small" in front of "minds."

Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:eIzrg.333$Pa.40433@news1.epix.net...
> grinder wrote:
>> "nothermark" <nothermark@not.here> wrote in message
>> news:gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>>>the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>>>we can do in this country is negligible.
>>
>>
>> U.S. accounts for 30% of the CO2 pollution. That is hardly negligible.
>
> Except that CO2 isn't pollution. Just ask a tree.
>
> Matt

What's ironic is that he is a tree hugger and he wants to MURDER trees,
suffocate them at that. deprive them of their co2 until they are dead...dead
I say.

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:eIzrg.333$Pa.40433@news1.epix.net...
> grinder wrote:
>> "nothermark" <nothermark@not.here> wrote in message
>> news:gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>>>the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>>>we can do in this country is negligible.
>>
>>
>> U.S. accounts for 30% of the CO2 pollution. That is hardly negligible.
>
> Except that CO2 isn't pollution. Just ask a tree.
>
> Matt

What's ironic is that he is a tree hugger and he wants to MURDER trees,
suffocate them at that. deprive them of their co2 until they are dead...dead
I say.

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:eIzrg.333$Pa.40433@news1.epix.net...
> grinder wrote:
>> "nothermark" <nothermark@not.here> wrote in message
>> news:gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>>>the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>>>we can do in this country is negligible.
>>
>>
>> U.S. accounts for 30% of the CO2 pollution. That is hardly negligible.
>
> Except that CO2 isn't pollution. Just ask a tree.
>
> Matt

What's ironic is that he is a tree hugger and he wants to MURDER trees,
suffocate them at that. deprive them of their co2 until they are dead...dead
I say.

 

"Some O" <SO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:SO-6D57AB.22570710072006@news.telus.net...
> In article <gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothermark@not.here> wrote:
>
>> You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>> the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>> we can do in this country is negligible.
> Reducing meat producing animals would help a lot.

Is not every animal made of meat?

 

"Some O" <SO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:SO-6D57AB.22570710072006@news.telus.net...
> In article <gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothermark@not.here> wrote:
>
>> You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>> the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>> we can do in this country is negligible.
> Reducing meat producing animals would help a lot.

Is not every animal made of meat?

 

"Some O" <SO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:SO-6D57AB.22570710072006@news.telus.net...
> In article <gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothermark@not.here> wrote:
>
>> You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>> the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>> we can do in this country is negligible.
> Reducing meat producing animals would help a lot.

Is not every animal made of meat?

 

It's Planet X approaching on its 8000 year orbit. Nothing to do but wait.


<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
>

 

It's Planet X approaching on its 8000 year orbit. Nothing to do but wait.


<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
>