WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:

SNIPPED

Everyone, from Ronald Reaqan to George Bush, knows that trees cause
pollution. We need to listen to our leaders. They know more than we do.

GW is a convenient lie. (Bush, that is)

Trees cause polution /??????? You're kidding, I hope!!

Trees are the solution to CO2 and global warming. Their process is: CO2 in, and
O2 out.

Now, fish life cause Methane; along with refried beans!

Now to replace the depleted Ozone layer we need more thunderstorms. Lightning
produces an 3O2 to 2O3 reaction. We should all have a Van DeGraff generator in
our back yards to contribute to the replenishment of the O3 layer.

Hydroplants that produce electricity add Nitrogen to the downstream H2O and
that's bad. So, we better shut down the Hydro plants. Fission facilities are
used to produce electricity but they produce long half life waste material. So,
we better shut down the fission facilities. The carbon [oil/coal/coke]
facilities produce SO2 and CO2 products. So, we better shut down the carbon
power plants. Without that power we can't turn on our computers. So, we can all
go back to talking on the real radio ... sorry, no electricty ... no radios. We
add a generator to ur bicycles and get in shape while we make electricity. Wait!
Wait! Wait! can't do that! Exercize increases CO2 gases when we exhale. Looks
like we have to stop exhaling!

If we can't exhale we better not inhale! And if we can't inhale who gives a damn
about trees and pollution!!

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:32:36 -0400, Dave wrote:

And if we can't inhale who gives a damn about trees and pollution!!
Try taking a breath with fewer trees and more pollution.

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Let's face it, the administration has abandoned the church's teachings
that we are the stewards of creation.

They have also abandoned the teachings of Jesus, like
"Turn the other cheek", "Do good to them who hate you",
and "Blessed are the meek".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
jawod wrote:

SNIPPED

Everyone, from Ronald Reaqan to George Bush, knows that trees cause
pollution. We need to listen to our leaders. They know more than we do.

GW is a convenient lie. (Bush, that is)

Trees cause polution /??????? You're kidding, I hope!!

Trees are the solution to CO2 and global warming. Their process is: CO2 in, and
O2 out.

Sorry, some trees do cause pollution.

Some trees produce huge amounts of isoprene, notably oak.

Some trees produce nitrogen oxides, notably pine.

Every wonder why the Blue Hills of Kentucky and Blue Mountains in
Australia are that way? Hydrocarbon pollution from trees.

Google for it.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

I want to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not
warming the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

No Republican, Democrat, or religion answers accepted. Just science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I don't understand. Are you claiming that the earth is NOT warming?

BTW, I, for one, do not agree with the argument that if GW is cyclic,
that human activity is not involved or is not important to it.

(I HOPE Cecil was kidding about the campfire theory of the last cycle.)

If the posters in this NG are really going to spend time refuting the
veracity of GW as a phenomenon, I'm pretty disappointed.

Antennas, anyone?

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message


My cousin is a Dairy Farmer in PA.
His cows produce more CO2 per hour
than three GMC Pickup trucks running
at idle for the same time period. Wonder how
Mr. Gore would address this problem?

Right after he invented the Internet, Al invented the
cow-talytic converter. It doesn't makes much money
but he's milking it for all it's worth. I have no beef
with him over that. He can skim the cream if he
needs to. He has no udder way to make a living.

No bull.

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:
I want to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not

warming the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

No Republican, Democrat, or religion answers accepted. Just science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


I don't understand. Are you claiming that the earth is NOT warming?

Oh no, just the opposite.

My point is that when the CO2 percentage of the atmosphere goes up,
more heat is retained. If the increased retention of heat does not
increase the surface temperature of the earth, then something is
happening to keep that from happening.

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.



BTW, I, for one, do not agree with the argument that if GW is cyclic,
that human activity is not involved or is not important to it.

(I HOPE Cecil was kidding about the campfire theory of the last cycle.)

Sure as he believes that Al Gore said he invented the Internet....

If the posters in this NG are really going to spend time refuting the
veracity of GW as a phenomenon, I'm pretty disappointed.

It's party doctrine, they have to! ;^)



Antennas, anyone?

Okay, let us discuss the effects of global warming on the atmosphere,
and therefore on RF propagation?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:14:42 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
Okay, let us discuss the effects of global warming on the atmosphere,
and therefore on RF propagation?

Hi Mike,

That would then segue us into HAARP and the Global Warming of the
Ionosphere....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is
not political in nature.

May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?
no :)

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

I think the major political party was headed by Dino Sauer. He was in conflict
with a king titled 'Rex' ... Tyrannosaurus Rex.

/s/ DD :-)

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?

C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.

Just wait until the next ice age, even a minor ice age, then they, the GW
advocates, will be demanding more CO2 in the atmosphere. :-)

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?

C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.

The democrats/socialists/communists are virtually
always in denial.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:29:18 -0400, Dave wrote:

May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?

C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.

For our apocalyptic hugging crowd inside the beltway, there were no
ice ages that long ago. There was no "that long ago" in the first
place for an earth only 7000 years old. Of course, that could be the
standard plausible deniability of the neo-cannibals at work to escape
blame - Rove is trying to elevate the discussion by blaming Clinton
for those ice ages.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:29:18 -0400, Dave wrote:


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?

C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.


For our apocalyptic hugging crowd inside the beltway, there were no
ice ages that long ago. There was no "that long ago" in the first
place for an earth only 7000 years old. Of course, that could be the
standard plausible deniability of the neo-cannibals at work to escape
blame - Rove is trying to elevate the discussion by blaming Clinton
for those ice ages.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh! I'm sure Hillary explained the ICE AGE to Bill after Monica!

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?


A magnificent non sequitur, Cecil!!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is
not political in nature.



May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?

no :)

Maybe your answer was a lot better than mine!!! 8^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is
not political in nature.



May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?


C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.

I don't know of a one who believes that.

The earth has been warming and cooling for a very long time. Pretty
much fact also. Some who believe that the earth was created in 4004
b.c.e might contest that.

The question of whether the so-called greenhouse gases have an effect
on the retention of heat in the atmosphere is just about as plain a fact
as there is. There are laboratory experiments, and comparisons with
other planets in our solar system.

Without "greenhouse gases" we simply wouldn't exist.

But the question is whether the amounts that we have introduced into
the atmosphere will have any effect.Here is a link that lists known
greenhouse gases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

Okay. Does our increase of 87 ppm from 1750 c.e. or the 1045 ppb
increase in methane during the same time period have any effect? Or do
human based sources have no effect, only natural sources

Interestingly, if as Cecil alleges, when we hit ~280 ppmv, we trigger an
ice age. Well, we passed that level some time ago. in 1998 we were at
365 ppmv.

Just wait until the next ice age, even a minor ice age, then they, the
GW advocates, will be demanding more CO2 in the atmosphere. :-)

Considering that another ice age will mean the loss of a good part of
humanity, that idea might have some merit.



- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?


C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.


The democrats/socialists/communists are virtually
always in denial.


Awesome name calling, Cecil! Seeing as how you are now hurling insults,
have you declared defeat? Shame on ya.

- Mike -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This indicates
that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural factors are
at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural factors are
at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural factors are
at work.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little Ice Age',
not the beginning of manmade [man contributed] GW.

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and cooling cycles
that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the major cause is just
irresponsible.

IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt + K3*d(El
Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt + K6*d(radio carbon
decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt ...

What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still open to
discovery.

/s/ DD

PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos was
formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce calculation is
incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

/s/ DD

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is
not political in nature.




May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?



C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.


I don't know of a one who believes that.

The earth has been warming and cooling for a very long time. Pretty
much fact also. Some who believe that the earth was created in 4004
b.c.e might contest that.

The question of whether the so-called greenhouse gases have an
effect on the retention of heat in the atmosphere is just about as plain
a fact as there is. There are laboratory experiments, and comparisons
with other planets in our solar system.

Without "greenhouse gases" we simply wouldn't exist.

But the question is whether the amounts that we have introduced into
the atmosphere will have any effect.Here is a link that lists known
greenhouse gases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

Okay. Does our increase of 87 ppm from 1750 c.e. or the 1045 ppb
increase in methane during the same time period have any effect? Or do
human based sources have no effect, only natural sources

Interestingly, if as Cecil alleges, when we hit ~280 ppmv, we trigger an
ice age. Well, we passed that level some time ago. in 1998 we were at
365 ppmv.


Just wait until the next ice age, even a minor ice age, then they, the
GW advocates, will be demanding more CO2 in the atmosphere. :-)


Considering that another ice age will mean the loss of a good part of
humanity, that idea might have some merit.



- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This
indicates that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little Ice
Age', not the beginning of manmade [man contributed] GW.

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and cooling
cycles that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the major cause
is just irresponsible.

No it isn't - or at least look at your statement for a second.

Greenhouse gases are not responsible for the majority of atmospheric
heat retention. Water vapor is. And there isn't a lot we can do about that.

You are redefining my argument. I am saying CO2 and other gases such as
methane, which do indeed represent a portion of the heat retention, are
present as a greater percentage that they were in the past.

I'm also saying that the additions are such that an increase in the
atmosphere's heat retention capacity should be seen. Nothing odd about
that. It can be shown experimentally.

Then the main thing I am saying is that if it isn't, then WHY isn't it?
If we just say "we don't know", and can offer nothing except calling
people who think that global warming might exist, and offer evidence,
and our own evidence consists of insults and rhetoric - well that is
what I consider irresponsible.


IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt + K3*d(El
Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt + K6*d(radio carbon
decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt ...


What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still open
to discovery.

Lots of reasons. Precession, Solar output, volcanic action, maybe a
stray asteroid or two. CO2 Methane, albedo.


PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce calculation
is incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

My bible in the hallway shelf says 4004 b.c.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Awesome name calling, Cecil! Seeing as how you are now hurling
insults, have you declared defeat? Shame on ya.

The truth is not an insult except to someone who
is denying the truth. Anyone who believes that
my life belongs to him/her is on my $hit list.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago.

Most scientists say it was ~12.5 billion years ago.
That assumes constant length seconds which is an
illogical assumption. If the length of a second
has changed drastically, 7000 years may be correct.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:

PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago.


Most scientists say it was ~12.5 billion years ago.
That assumes constant length seconds which is an
illogical assumption.


If the length of a second has changed drastically, 7000 years may be
correct.
Possibly the most absurd thing I've read so far. A most disengenuous
argument.

Are we now going to abuse the theory of relativity to satisfy the
convenient lie of creationism?

Have we moved from Darwin to Einstein?

Are Copernicus and Galileo next?

How about Roger Bacon? (who?)

Oh, wait, it's Cecil. I'm fished-in again.

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This
indicates that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Several large regional deforestations have taken place over Man's
history. Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...now nearly
desert, Lebanon serves as dramatic evidence of deforestation during the
Bronze and Iron ages. Deforestations occurred in Mayan lands around the
time of Christ.

The chief difference today is that deforestation occurs all around the
globe more-or-less at once.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little Ice
Age',

Yes, and there was a warming period near the end of the Roman
period...your point?

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and cooling
cycles that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the major cause
is just irresponsible.
Hogwash. The grand majority of scientists working on these issues do
not refute manmade impacts on GW (excepting, of course, those receiving
paychecks from industries primarily responsible for them.) Unknown
factors will always exist, but scientific consensus has been already
been achieved on GW.

IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt + K3*d(El
Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt + K6*d(radio carbon
decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt ...

What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still open
to discovery.
The argument for GW is no longer in dispute within the scientific
community. Cyclicity of global temperature does not negate the argument
that the current run of GW is something new and unprecedented. Right
now, governments are already planning for projected effects.

It's here, it's now, it's WOW.

/s/ DD

PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce calculation
is incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

Ask any Baptist and you'll get the 4004 answer...the "one-second-used-to
be-a-million-years" argument notwithstanding.

Again,
My understanding of the notion of GW is that human activity is now
PERTURBING the cyclicity that already exists. Pre-existing cyclicity of
global temperature cannot in itself refute the argument for the
existence of GW as a "new" phenomenon. They're intertwined.


/s/ DD

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:
If the length of a second has changed drastically, 7000 years may be
correct.
Possibly the most absurd thing I've read so far. A most disengenuous
argument.

Not at all. We know the length of seconds change with
velocity. We could easily calculate an initial velocity
and a present velocity that would make the universe
7000 absolute years old. (absolute as opposed to relative)

Are we now going to abuse the theory of relativity to satisfy the
convenient lie of creationism?

Could be, they are both correct.

Have we moved from Darwin to Einstein?

Did you see the movie, "Inherit the Wind"? At the end of
the movie, Clarence Darrow weighed the value of both
Darwin and The Bible and tucked both under his arm.

Are Copernicus and Galileo next?

Can you prove that the earth is not at a fixed point in
space?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:
Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...

Looks like a cedar tree to me. Lebanon's cedar
trees are mentioned in The Bible.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Richard Clark wrote:

For our apocalyptic hugging crowd inside the beltway, there were no
ice ages that long ago. There was no "that long ago" in the first
place for an earth only 7000 years old. Of course, that could be the
standard plausible deniability of the neo-cannibals at work to escape
blame - Rove is trying to elevate the discussion by blaming Clinton
for those ice ages.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was more like 4000 something according to people I am acquanted with
that believe in those fairy tales.

And I won't vote for either of your parties. Both are just as corrupt.
Like you Richard, who vote for a yellow-dog-democrats, I will vote for
anything that has breath that is Libertarian.

tom
K0TAR

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
jawod wrote:

Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...


Looks like a cedar tree to me. Lebanon's cedar
trees are mentioned in The Bible.

You got me. Yes, I think it IS a Cedar tree, not a cyprus.

Incidentally, I recall that the island of Cyprus is named for the
element copper, heavily mined on the island and smelted (with the help
of the CEDAR trees for the furnace).

:)

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:21:56 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Like you Richard, who vote for a yellow-dog-democrats, I will vote for
anything that has breath that is Libertarian.

Hi Tom,

You want to look at that sentence again and propose just what it
means? You vote, like me, for yellow-dog-democrats? Or you (in
contrast to me) vote for Libertarians who are like
yellow-dog-democrats? Or you (a yellow-dog-democrat) vote for
Libertarians? You seem to be politically ambivalent. ;-)

Punctuation and grammar matters.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Awesome name calling, Cecil! Seeing as how you are now hurling
insults, have you declared defeat? Shame on ya.


The truth is not an insult except to someone who
is denying the truth. Anyone who believes that
my life belongs to him/her is on my $hit list.

Obviously, you're a running dog lacky of the fascistic, corporatist,
military-industrial oligarchy. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to lull
the masses into believing the poisonous fumes from your CO2-belching
vehicles are harmless to the environment. What you need is a good
re-education at a good re-education camp, Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Tom Ring wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:


For our apocalyptic hugging crowd inside the beltway, there were no
ice ages that long ago. There was no "that long ago" in the first
place for an earth only 7000 years old. Of course, that could be the
standard plausible deniability of the neo-cannibals at work to escape
blame - Rove is trying to elevate the discussion by blaming Clinton
for those ice ages.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


It was more like 4000 something according to people I am acquanted with
that believe in those fairy tales.

And I won't vote for either of your parties. Both are just as corrupt.
Like you Richard, who vote for a yellow-dog-democrats, I will vote for
anything that has breath that is Libertarian.

tom
K0TAR

Libertarians are just kinder, gentler Anarchists. They're more to be
pitied than scorned.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:21:56 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:


Like you Richard, who vote for a yellow-dog-democrats, I will vote for
anything that has breath that is Libertarian.


Hi Tom,

You want to look at that sentence again and propose just what it
means? You vote, like me, for yellow-dog-democrats? Or you (in
contrast to me) vote for Libertarians who are like
yellow-dog-democrats? Or you (a yellow-dog-democrat) vote for
Libertarians? You seem to be politically ambivalent. ;-)

Punctuation and grammar matters.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, he's a Libertarian. You have to expect sentences like
that from Libertarians.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
(P.S. Cecil is a Libertarian, too.)

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to lull
the masses into believing the poisonous fumes from your CO2-belching
vehicles are harmless to the environment.

Didn't say they were harmless, Tom, and CO2 is not poisonous.
I said that global warming has, so far, always corrected itself
without the help of man.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Tom Donaly wrote:

SNIPPED


Richard, he's a Libertarian. You have to expect sentences like
that from Libertarians.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
(P.S. Cecil is a Libertarian, too.)

Libertarian = Anarchy rules!
Democratic = Tyranny of the majority rules!
Republican = Strong private sector economy rules!
Socialist = Elitist know what's best for you and me.
Green Party = Nature rules, the hell with people.
Conservationist = Dinosaur's rule.

/s/ DD

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
Libertarian = Anarchy rules!

From: http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

What is a Libertarian?

Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you
wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate
the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling
back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle
the economy and control people’s personal choices.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Awesome name calling, Cecil! Seeing as how you are now hurling
insults, have you declared defeat? Shame on ya.

The truth is not an insult except to someone who
is denying the truth. Anyone who believes that
my life belongs to him/her is on my $hit list.


Okay Cecil. I apologize, for I have upset you, quite a bit it appears.
I bear no ill will, and most certainly I don't want to enforce upon you
my idea of the truth.


I'll quit picking on you now..

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

The "sky is falling folks" also fail to take into account the nutation of
the earth that causes the earth to be tilted towards the sun a bit more...
Kinda like the difference between winter and summer tilt.

It takes one hell of an ego to think that puny man can affect the earths
climate. Notice those that are the loudest voices live packed atop one an
other, smelling bus fumes in big cities. They think the rest of the world is
exactly like there limited universe.

I still await an explanation of how freon, that is heavier than air, manages
to make it to the South pole and finds the magical propert to climb to the
ionisphere and eat ozone.

But as always, there is no money in truth, nor can it stop the evil
industrial military complex...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Tom Donaly wrote:
Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to lull the masses into believing the
poisonous fumes from your CO2-belching vehicles are harmless to the
environment.

Didn't say they were harmless, Tom, and CO2 is not poisonous.
I said that global warming has, so far, always corrected itself
without the help of man.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:
Dave wrote:
Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This
indicates that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Several large regional deforestations have taken place over Man's
history. Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...now nearly
desert, Lebanon serves as dramatic evidence of deforestation during the
Bronze and Iron ages. Deforestations occurred in Mayan lands around the
time of Christ.

In the late 1800's, most of Central PA was deforested. Either for
lumber, or for the iron industry. I was told that you could go to the
top of Tussey mountain south of my QTH, and not see a single tree in any
direction. Since the people who were making the charcoal that was used
to make the iron thought that planting new trees wasn't a cost effective
option - if they indeed thought about it at all - they eventually ran
out of fuel.

We still are enjoying the effects. What has grown in the original
lumbers place is nowhere near the quality that existed before. We mostly
grow pulpwood now.

Humans really *do* have an effect on the environment.


The chief difference today is that deforestation occurs all around the
globe more-or-less at once.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little
Ice Age',

Yes, and there was a warming period near the end of the Roman
period...your point?

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and
cooling cycles that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the
major cause is just irresponsible.
Hogwash. The grand majority of scientists working on these issues do
not refute manmade impacts on GW (excepting, of course, those receiving
paychecks from industries primarily responsible for them.) Unknown
factors will always exist, but scientific consensus has been already
been achieved on GW.

IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt +
K3*d(El Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt +
K6*d(radio carbon decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt
...

What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still
open to discovery.

The argument for GW is no longer in dispute within the scientific
community. Cyclicity of global temperature does not negate the argument
that the current run of GW is something new and unprecedented. Right
now, governments are already planning for projected effects.

It's here, it's now, it's WOW.


PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce
calculation is incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

Ask any Baptist and you'll get the 4004 answer...the "one-second-used-to
be-a-million-years" argument notwithstanding.

Sometimes ya gotta be pretty creative to be always right! My
Grandparents were Baptists, and they were firm believers in that date.
They also believed in biblical support for slavery for that matter. 8^0


Who's gonna tell them they are wrong?


Again,
My understanding of the notion of GW is that human activity is now
PERTURBING the cyclicity that already exists. Pre-existing cyclicity of
global temperature cannot in itself refute the argument for the
existence of GW as a "new" phenomenon. They're intertwined.

That is pretty much correct.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
In the late 1800's, most of Central PA was deforested. Either for
lumber, or for the iron industry. I was told that you could go to the
top of Tussey mountain south of my QTH, and not see a single tree in any
direction. Since the people who were making the charcoal that was used
to make the iron thought that planting new trees wasn't a cost effective
option - if they indeed thought about it at all - they eventually ran
out of fuel.

Some sea-going Pacific islanders used up all their trees
and then couldn't build any boats. :-(
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com