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 -