Michael Coslo wrote:

Buy Febreeze stock........

Proctor and Gamble closed at $65.27 today. It paid $0.40 a share last
quarter.

Hi Mike, speaking of things that are possible, it's possible that the
hot air Al Gore produces has contributed more to global warming than
anything else. Personally, I don't believe that. I think it's caused
by the Sun.

ac6xg

Indeed! And the "Hockey Stick" has been shown to be bad data, and
worse statistics. The "increasing frequency and intensity of
hurricanes" has now been disproved by none other that the sources he
quotes, as has his the claim concerning changes to the Mt. Kilimanjaro
snow pack. All in nicely refereed papers in reputable journals.

I await the release of "An Inconvenient Truth II: Oops!" Not holding
my breath, though.


--
Alan
WA4SCA

Good article, in general

Your signature lines are political and inaccurate. Why confuse the
solar cycle with global warming?

"jawod" wrote in message ...
Good article, in general

Your signature lines are political and inaccurate. Why confuse the solar
cycle with global warming?

not 'confuse' it, correlate it... there have been several studies that have
correlated solar activity with global temperature changes. if we are indeed
in a relatively active part of a long term solar fluctuation (hundreds of
years not dozens) then does it not make sense that the solar activity may be
warming us up?? Even other planets are being affected, read to the last
line of the explanation of this pretty pictu
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html
Surely you can't blame human activity on global warming on Jupiter... even
though we have dumped a bit of left over space debris in there recently.

Posted on behalf of WA2OQM whose newsgroups connection is interrupted. F8ND

The comments by the Hams in this group don't point out the fallacy for the
Carbon target of the environmental commissars. Some have alluded to the
enrichment of the elite of a Marxist State i.e. the political class. I for
one would like to expose these charlatans by showing the errors in which
they pick their data .

1 - C14 dating in the XX century to prove the anthropogenic cause of
increased Carbon and not accounting for the proportional increase in C14 to
nuclear explosions in the atmosphere ending up in the recent Ice cores of
glaciers. Using the fixed proportion of C14 to non- isotopic carbon askew
the Carbon concentrations.

2 - The disregard for the modulating and moderating effects of the Carbonic
acid cycle and the Photosynthesis cycle on atmosphere CO2.

3- The disregard of the Methane sink in the upper atmosphere that is
influenced on the catalytic action of U.V. and the geomagnetic activity of
the Earth. methane is far more of a "greenhouse" gas than CO2. Geomagnetic
changes bend shorter wavelength in varying ways and create changes in
paths of shorter wave length solar radiation just as they do to radio
frequency electromagnetic radiation we hams employ.

4 - Then there are the vagaries of Solar radiation and Sunspots and the 11
year Solar cycles which are poorly understood an have a know relationship to
climatic variations.

The U.N. science consensus cleverly declares that all these factors are of
little consequence to the "Anthropogenic" factor. Its hard for any rational
person to accept this unless they are politically motivated. Please post
this with my call on the News group.

WA2OQM

"Dave" a écrit dans le message de news:
7kTZj.82$RG.66@trndny07...

"jawod" wrote in message
...
Good article, in general

Your signature lines are political and inaccurate. Why confuse the solar
cycle with global warming?

not 'confuse' it, correlate it... there have been several studies that
have correlated solar activity with global temperature changes. if we are
indeed in a relatively active part of a long term solar fluctuation
(hundreds of years not dozens) then does it not make sense that the solar
activity may be warming us up?? Even other planets are being affected,
read to the last line of the explanation of this pretty pictu
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html
Surely you can't blame human activity on global warming on Jupiter... even
though we have dumped a bit of left over space debris in there recently.

On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:07:06 -1000, Roger wrote:

Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
--
"We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no
better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is
being
shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or
no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html
http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/

Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22
million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term
effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly
(20-40 years) and not have to worry about it.

Oh, your worried about brain-washing your kinds? Your a good parent!

Bernard Peters wrote:

Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22
million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term
effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly
(20-40 years) and not have to worry about it.

The Earth's atmosphere is roughly 2.7X10^16 tons.

22 million tons is .000000039% of that, so at that rate it
would take a million years to get to .039% assuming it all stuck.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:25:03 +0000, jimp wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER
22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long
term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead
shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it.

The Earth's atmosphere is roughly 2.7X10^16 tons.

22 million tons is .000000039% of that, so at that rate it would take a
million years to get to .039% assuming it all stuck.

You can use the same logic when someone ****es in your town's water tank

Bernard Peters wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:25:03 +0000, jimp wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER
22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long
term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead
shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it.

The Earth's atmosphere is roughly 2.7X10^16 tons.

22 million tons is .000000039% of that, so at that rate it would take a
million years to get to .039% assuming it all stuck.

You can use the same logic when someone ****es in your town's water tank

A lot of the municipal water around here comes from man made lakes
with people and fish ****ing in them all the time.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Bernard Peters wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:25:03 +0000, jimp wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER
22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long
term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead
shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it.
The Earth's atmosphere is roughly 2.7X10^16 tons.

22 million tons is .000000039% of that, so at that rate it would take a
million years to get to .039% assuming it all stuck.

You can use the same logic when someone ****es in your town's water tank

A lot of the municipal water around here comes from man made lakes
with people and fish ****ing in them all the time.



If I were you, I'd move.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH