On Apr 21, 9:24 pm, Whatever wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article uLwWh.1557$Zm.901@trndny03, Whatever
wrote:

Telamon wrote:

Anyone with even half a brain understands that mans contribution to
various gas balance in the atmosphere is a drop in the bucket compared
to natural processes that control it.

We do not control the atmospheric gas balance or temperature globally.
We do control it locally such as creating heat islands around cities for
example but the over all climate picture is not determined by mans
activity.

There are many temperature cycles that can be seen over time. We may be
at the end of a 20 year or middle of a 40 year warming trend. The
average temperature may start to decline now or may increase another
0.6 degC yet then decline.

Nobody knows what will happen yet because we do not have reliable
temperature data beyond 150 years and global climate models are a joke
so speculate all you want about what the future holds.

Inconveniently, the single biggest individual energy user and propaganda
provider in the USA is Al Gore.

So you're willing to bet your future and that of future generations on
the slight possibility that you're right. By the time we know for sure,
it would be too late to act. If it turns out you're right, we will still
have cleaned up the environment in an effort to stop global warming,
even if it doesn't happen. Either way we win.

What part of "man does not influence the climate" do you not understand?

I understand the part that's wrong.



The only way to stop generating CO2 by our economy is to kill it and you
would have to get every other country to kill its economy or it is for
nothing. We all go back to the stone age globally. It is not going to
happen.

That's a strawman. No one proposes the complete cessation of CO2
production to curtail global warming. It's only necessary to reduce CO2
to the point where global warming stabilizes or hopefully reverses to a
certain extent.



Personally you can do your part by holding your breath.

I do, between breaths.



Nothing wrong with being energy efficient and re-cycling waste so as to
not pollute but it is not going to change the climate.

You realize that trees and other plants generate particulate matter
right?

That's the Ronald Reagan defense. He thought trees caused more pollution
than cars. Trees produce 02 which is essential to life on the planet. O2
is not 'particulate matter'. Cars produce gases and particles which are
harmful to the environment.

Chances are scientists will figure out that all the cars sucking
in air and burning the natural particulate matter in it through filters
and catalytic converters put out less particulate than went into the
engine cleaning the air. Cleaner air next to the ground will let more
sunlight hit it warming the earth raising temperatures in the lower
atmosphere. How's that for a theory?

Chances are? You seem to be a gambler when it comes to the future of
humanity. Are you doing the research on that theory?

Makes more sense than the global
warming crowd makes. So go out there and drive an old car that generates
more pollution and particulate matter into the air to fight global
warming like Al Gore does.


- So where did you get your climatology degree

WHATEVER ? Climatology Degree ? What Ever !

Got Mind from an All American Box-of-Cracker-Jacks ! ! ! ~ RHF

And.. just where did you get yours a Forture Cookie ?

WHATEVER - More importantly since Al Gore has NO
Scientific Degree or Real Climatology Credentials : Then
Why Do You Believe anything that he says at all ? ? ?
-Blind-Faith- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

The Al Gore "Global Warming" Dog-and-Pony Show
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
presented by the Master of Pseudo-Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Mystifying the Mindless with Scientific Mumbo Jumbo and
Fear to Create Hysteria and Receive Grants and Funding.

AL GORE LIED - "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...31355859226455