|
Damn Damn Damn
|
Damn Damn Damn
I have some sockets made for impact tools, I will use one of them
tomorrow.That other socket was soooooo old and used and abused, it cracked up one side of it.I have an old Sears electric impact wrench I bought new back in the 1970s.It isn't worth a Sheet and it wasen't worth a Sheet the day I bought it at the Sears store at Metrocenter Mall, 275 of my foot steps South of doggy's couch.That old rusted/rotten ass lawn mower isn't going to be me, I Guarantee you that! cuhulin |
Damn Damn Damn
On Apr 2, 5:43*pm, Hils wrote:
wrote: Tony Blair , reminded me of Bugs Bunny every time he spoke in public . Always happy and comical . . . LOL! I'll remember that image next time he turns up, it'll be more constructive than getting angry. He's keeping a notably low profile in the UK these days, citizens keep abusing him and trying to arrest him for war crimes. You are not kidding . With 'friends' like Baby Bush , who needs enemies ? |
June Gloom on April the 2th
On Apr 2, 8:45*pm, dave wrote:
On 4/2/2011 12:57 PM, wrote: On Apr 2, 9:43 am, *wrote: On 04/01/2011 09:37 PM, wrote: On Apr 1, 12:08 am, wrote: I don't know if it is True, or not, but I once read somewhere that Owles are the Dumbest of all Birds. Fits Dumb Ass Owle 'Global Warming' Gourdhead to a T. How come that 'Clobal Warming' MOFO Dumb Bird *has Shut Up? cuhulin May be the 'Global Warming' is a total hoax . Amongst many other popular 'trends',e.g. Y2K , NAFTA , 'organic food' etc. etc. etc. How can something measured with instruments be a hoax? More likely, your source of scientific info is a hoax. You seem to be an undiscriminating news consumer. Most of what they tell you is wrong, or out of context, etc. TV news is completely wrong almost always. What's a hoax about organic food? Are you saying eating pesticides is good for you? How do we define the term 'organic' ? Who knows what the so-called healthy-food and organically-grown-food is really naturally 'grown' ? And how much of it is genetically modified ? And why so many US food products are banned in many countries ? And what makes you come to the conclusion I get my news from television ? I can tell food is organic by the way it tastes and looks. I presume you believe your TV because you said global warming is a hoax. A lot of people go to great pains to spread that one.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No comment . Your world views are deeply ingrained and very rigid . The world according to Dave ! |
June Gloom on April the 2th
|
June Gloom on April the 2th
Former NHS director dies after operation is cancelled four times at her
own hospital http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=305642 You gonna get FREE healthcare!,,,,,,, Free healthcare is like Islam.They Both are Cults of Death! cuhulin |
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/o Cooling ! -or-just-a-myth-
On Apr 1, 9:37*pm, wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:08*am, wrote: I don't know if it is True, or not, but I once read somewhere that Owles are the Dumbest of all Birds. Fits Dumb Ass Owle 'Global Warming' Gourdhead to a T. How come that 'Clobal Warming' MOFO Dumb Bird *has Shut Up? cuhulin May be the 'Global Warming' is a total hoax . Amongst many other popular 'trends',e.g. Y2K , NAFTA , 'organic food' etc. etc. etc. World Wide Climate Change last millennium, this millennium, and next millennium is very real. The 'suspect' part is that Mankind is presently the prime cause of it all today. Looking a hundred years back and a hundred years forward. The highly 'suspicious' part is that the USA and Europe must do something about it : By Implementing Energy Use Cut-Backs and Energy Use 'Carbon' Taxes -while- China's 1.3B and India's 1B don't have to do anything -and- the Rest of the World continues to Pollute unabated. the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF |
Let's All Celebrate 'Special-Dave's Day : 1 April +2
On Apr 2, 7:17*pm, wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:45*pm, dave wrote: On 4/2/2011 12:57 PM, wrote: On Apr 2, 9:43 am, *wrote: On 04/01/2011 09:37 PM, wrote: On Apr 1, 12:08 am, wrote: I don't know if it is True, or not, but I once read somewhere that Owles are the Dumbest of all Birds. Fits Dumb Ass Owle 'Global Warming' Gourdhead to a T. How come that 'Clobal Warming' MOFO Dumb Bird *has Shut Up? cuhulin May be the 'Global Warming' is a total hoax . Amongst many other popular 'trends',e.g. Y2K , NAFTA , 'organic food' etc. etc. etc. How can something measured with instruments be a hoax? More likely, your source of scientific info is a hoax. You seem to be an undiscriminating news consumer. Most of what they tell you is wrong, or out of context, etc. TV news is completely wrong almost always. What's a hoax about organic food? Are you saying eating pesticides is good for you? How do we define the term 'organic' ? Who knows what the so-called healthy-food and organically-grown-food is really naturally 'grown' ? And how much of it is genetically modified ? And why so many US food products are banned in many countries ? And what makes you come to the conclusion I get my news from television ? I can tell food is organic by the way it tastes and looks. I presume you believe your TV because you said global warming is a hoax.. A lot of people go to great pains to spread that one.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - No comment . - Your world views are deeply ingrained and very rigid . - The world according to Dave ! 'Special-Dave' lives in 'Dave's-World' Thou Shall Have No Other 'Dave's Before You ! -for-dave-is-'special'- Our 'Dave' Who F'art In This World . . . -hollow-be-thy-brain- ;;-}} ~ RHF |
Let's All Celebrate 'Special-Dave's Day : 1 April +2
On 04/03/2011 02:30 AM, RHF wrote:
On Apr 2, 7:17 pm, wrote: I presume you believe your TV because you said global warming is a hoax. A lot of people go to great pains to spread that one.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - No comment . - Your world views are deeply ingrained and very rigid . - The world according to Dave ! 'Special-Dave' lives in 'Dave's-World' Thou Shall Have No Other 'Dave's Before You ! -for-dave-is-'special'- Our 'Dave' Who F'art In This World . . . -hollow-be-thy-brain- ;;-}} ~ RHF Blasphemer! I am He as You are He as You are Me and We are all together |
June Gloom on April the 2th
|
June Gloom on April the 2th
|
June Gloom on April the 2th
|
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/o Cooling! -or-just-a-myth-
On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:
the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. |
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/oCooli...
Waco Fat Ho Burgers is quite a considerable distance from Fort Hood.I am
too lazy to look it up in my Rand McNally Road Atlas right now.You look it up.I have been to Waco before and I spent from the first of January 1965 to October 29,1965 at Fort Hood.I reckon I know it's quite a ways from Fort Hood to Waco.Killeen would be considered the 'Gateway' to Fort Hood, ergo Killeen is next door to Fort Hood.You email or phone Fort Hood and you email or phone Killeen and you ask them.Don't just take my word for it, ''expert''. cuhulin, the Fort Hood/Killeen ............................................. You just gotta Luv it, sooooooooo many ''experts'' out there! ............................................. |
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/oCooli...
2,000 Year Old Depiction Of Jesus Found?
http://www.drudgereport.com I Believe It.I Believe It. I also Believe I better get back in my back yard and woik my old crappy rusted/rotten lawn mower some mower. cuhulin, the lawn mower/ WORKING! |
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/oCooli...
BREAKING! Lawn Mower Update.All three of those bolts that held the
engine to the crappy old rusted/rotten frame BROKE OFF.I don't give a Sheet.Time for me to buy a New 20'' (blade measures 20'' long, I don't want anything bigger that that) lawn mower anyway.Tomorrow, after stopping off at the Goodwill store as purr usual, I will check the Dangerous Walmart store and the Lowe's store and the Sears store, whichever store has the cheapest prices for what I wants.Might as well check a couple of pawn shops too.And the http://www.clarionledger.com Classifieds section. cuhulin, the BROKE ass lawn mower |
and... That Ain't No April Fools Day Joke !
On Apr 3, 6:30*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
- - On 4/2/2011 11:40 PM, wrote: - - Free healthcare is like Islam. - - They Both are Cults of Death! - - cuhulin - So, when are you going to cancel your participation in Medicare? Nah - It is Obama-Careİ that is Designed to Cancel* Your Subscription to Life ! * Obama's Death Panels Codified into the Public Law of Obama-Careİ and that ain't no april fools day joke ~ RHF |
'Special-Dave' -proclaims- 7 Out of 10 Americans are MisinformedAbout Current Events
On Apr 3, 4:52*am, dave wrote:
On 04/02/2011 07:17 PM, wrote: On Apr 2, 8:45 pm, *wrote: I can tell food is organic by the way it tastes and looks. I presume you believe your TV because you said global warming is a hoax. |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and Global Coolingand Man Adapts...
On Apr 3, 6:34*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. JfK -suggest- That You Get Better Glasses ! Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% * WRT : Global {Naturally Occurring} Climate Change The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and Global Cooling -and- Man Adapts by Moving to the Livable Places on the Earth and Building Better Dwellings : * NOT BY EXCESSIVE ENERGY USE TAXES THAT'S WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-SOCIALISM} -man-adapts-by-opening-a-window-when-it's-warm- * NOT BY CUTTING REDUCING ENERGY USE THAT'S ENERGY REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-FASCISM} -man-adapts-by-building-a-fire-when-it's-cold- |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and Global Coolingand Man Adapts...
On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. But no more. Because of the cooling climate. Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. Look it up. Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. Which raises the REAL question..... Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now. |
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/o Cooling! -or-just-a-myth-
On Apr 3, 5:17*am, RHF wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:37*pm, wrote: On Apr 1, 12:08*am, wrote: I don't know if it is True, or not, but I once read somewhere that Owles are the Dumbest of all Birds. Fits Dumb Ass Owle 'Global Warming' Gourdhead to a T. How come that 'Clobal Warming' MOFO Dumb Bird *has Shut Up? cuhulin May be the 'Global Warming' is a total hoax . Amongst many other popular 'trends',e.g. Y2K , NAFTA , 'organic food' etc. etc. etc. World Wide Climate Change last millennium, this millennium, and next millennium is very real. The 'suspect' part is that Mankind is presently the prime cause of it all today. Looking a hundred years back and a hundred years forward. The highly 'suspicious' part is that the USA and Europe must do something about it : By Implementing Energy Use Cut-Backs and Energy Use 'Carbon' Taxes -while- China's 1.3B and India's 1B don't have to do anything -and- the Rest of the World continues to Pollute unabated. the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF *. *. India's last census count is : 1B 210M 193 422 . They might overtake China in a matter of just a few years . |
It's Global Warming
On Apr 3, 7:43*am, dave wrote:
On 04/03/2011 02:17 AM, RHF wrote: The 'suspect' part is that Mankind is presently the prime cause of it all today. Looking a hundred years back and a hundred years forward. The highly 'suspicious' part is that the USA and Europe must do something about it : By Implementing Energy Use Cut-Backs and Energy Use 'Carbon' Taxes -while- China's 1.3B and India's 1B don't have to do anything -and- the Rest of the World continues to Pollute unabated. the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF Nothing "kind" about man. India and China are busting ass on renewables; we should be ashamed. The only people who think they aren't are the morons who get their news from TV and AM radio. Amplitude modulation has been used for many,many years : by shortwave broadcasters, by hams, by.....by....... everyone and his uncle . MW broadcasts are not restricted to just local consumption . BTW, where does Dave get 'His News' ??? |
June Gloom on April the 2th
On Apr 3, 7:52*am, dave wrote:
On 04/02/2011 07:17 PM, wrote: On Apr 2, 8:45 pm, *wrote: I can tell food is organic by the way it tastes and looks. I presume you believe your TV because you said global warming is a hoax. |
Damn Damn Damn
On Apr 3, 2:53*pm, Hils wrote:
wrote: Come on doggy, lets go front yard and poo poo pee pee. The fine spring weather has encouraged me to go out walking. Many of the local streets and public parks are covered by dog fouling bye-laws, with notices reminding people that dog wardens are patrolling the area and can fine them if they don't clean up after their pooch etc etc. There are more dog poo bins in the area than regular litter bins, yet some of my fellow citizens have adopted a strange way of dealing with their dog poo. The first choice is clearly to scoop it up and put it in one of the bins which are never more than a few minutes walk away. The second choice is to leave it where it is: in winter it stays for ages, in summer it stinks, but eventually nature's little microbes take care of it and it disappears. The third and strangest choice is to pick up their dog's poo in a shopping bag or nappy bag... and hang it from a tree branch. What are they thinking? That a council official patrols every public area each day, collecting all the little bags of **** they have left hanging? Have they not noticed dozens of the bags they have already left, festooning trees and shrubs throughout the neighbourhood? Perhaps the local council should make a determined effort to track down the phantom poo-hangers, and send them a bill for the cost of hiring someone to clear up after them. £30,000 a year, on top of the existing tax for local services, should do the job. After all, removing ornamental poo-bags is at least as skilled a job as hanging them. It is becoming a serious problem over here in the last few years . The streets are full of dogs' excrements and it is simply dangerous to walk without looking under your feet ! Some dog owners think it is their constitutional right to pollute anywhere and everywhwere ... |
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/o Cooli...
On Apr 3, 4:39*pm, dave wrote:
On 04/03/2011 07:38 AM, wrote: Waco Fat Ho Burgers is quite a considerable distance from Fort Hood.I am too lazy to look it up in my Rand McNally Road Atlas right now.You look it up.I have been to Waco before and I spent from the first of January 1965 to October 29,1965 at Fort Hood.I reckon I know it's quite a ways from Fort Hood to Waco.Killeen would be considered the 'Gateway' to Fort Hood, ergo Killeen is next door to Fort Hood.You email or phone Fort Hood and you email or phone Killeen and you ask them.Don't just take my word for it, ''expert''. cuhulin, the Fort Hood/Killeen ............................................ You just gotta Luv it, sooooooooo many ''experts'' out there! ............................................ I used to work in a titty bar in Killeen. ??? What ??? And what was your job title there ??? |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCooling and Man Adapts...
On Apr 3, 4:04*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from *wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. No Since China ans Soon India will be Surpassing the USA Europe and Japan in GHG / CO2 Pollution : They Too Should Be Required to Stop / Not Start [.] IT IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM : NOT A USA ONLY PROBLEM First : Regressive Wealth Transfer Taxes are Not the Answer ! * NOT BY EXCESSIVE ENERGY USE TAXES THAT'S WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-SOCIALISM} -say-no-no-no-to-more-obama-taxes-taxes-taxes- Second : Cleaner Energy and More Efficient Energy Use is the Answer : Not Cap-and-Trade * NOT BY CUTTING REDUCING ENERGY USE THAT'S ENERGY REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-FASCISM} -say-yes-yes-yes-to-more-cleaner-and better-energy- |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCoolingand Man Adapts...
"D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. But no more. Because of the cooling climate. Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. Look it up. Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. Which raises the REAL question..... Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now. I'm looking forward to his, and others, fantasy response! dxAce Michigan USA |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and Global Coolingand Man Adapts...
On Apr 3, 1:52*pm, dave wrote:
On 04/03/2011 01:21 PM, RHF wrote: JfK -suggest- That You Get Better Glasses ! Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% Actually it does. If you look at the very tip of the hockey stick on top of the solar variation you'll see that instead of wobbling, then starting back down, this warm phase is still wobbling at the top, making this warm period way longer than any others in the record. Just look at the graphs. http://blog.world-mysteries.com/wp-c.../11/ice_age_gr... Dave : Could It Be... Is It Possible... That We Are In An 'Unprecedented' Period of Scientific Warning* http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...9de836018fccec * Pseudo-Science Hysteria ! |
China leads the way in renewable enrgy
On 04/04/2011 02:50 AM, RHF wrote:
No Since China ans Soon India will be Surpassing the USA Europe and Japan in GHG / CO2 Pollution : They Too Should Be Required to Stop / Not Start [.] IT IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM : NOT A USA ONLY PROBLEM http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/b...ble-energy-use China is beating the U.S. in the race to supply clean-energy technologies to the world, helped by a government bank whose advisers include Henry Kissinger. China Development Bank Corp., which listed the former U.S. secretary of state as an advisory board member in a 2010 bond prospectus, agreed last year to lend $35.4 billion to Chinese wind and solar power companies. The U.S. gave about $4 billion to their American competitors in grants and offered about $16 billion of loan guarantees. Adding in private investment, China also led. CDB, which has almost twice the assets of the World Bank, is matching U.S. expertise with Chinese financing and manufacturing prowess to dominate a market both nations say is critical to their future. Chinese solar-panel makers such as LDK Solar Co. Ltd. were the biggest loan recipients and for the first time last year supplied more than half the global market, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which began its annual conference Sunday in New York. "What China's doing is really smart," said Jon Anda, vice chairman of UBS AG's securities unit in Stamford, Conn. "Without a clear policy path, we'll get crushed." |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and Global Coolingand Man Adapts...
On 04/03/2011 06:28 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. But no more. Because of the cooling climate. Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. Look it up. Are you sure he wasn't talking about wild berries? http://www.winesofcanada.com/nfld.html |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCooling and Man Adapts...
On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. * *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. * *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. * *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. * *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. * *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. * *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. * *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. * *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? * *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. * *It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. * *Sound familiar? * *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. * *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. * *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. * *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. * *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. * *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. * *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. * *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. * *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate. * *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. * *Look it up. * *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. * *Which raises the REAL question..... * *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? * *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Peter, I've looked it up. As a weather scientist I studied it. You're incorrect. Period. Bruce |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCooling and Man Adapts...
On Apr 4, 9:02*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. * *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. * *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. * *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. * *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. * *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. * *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. * *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. * *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? * *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. * *It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. * *Sound familiar? * *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. * *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. * *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. * *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. * *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. * *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. * *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. * *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. * *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate. * *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. * *Look it up. * *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. * *Which raises the REAL question..... * *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? * *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Peter, I've looked it up. *As a weather scientist I studied it. You're incorrect. *Period. Bruce- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Here - try this on for size. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html For starters. The evidence is abundant from one REAL scientific source after another that humans pump out orders of magnitude more GHG than volcanoes, even big ones. Bruce Jensen |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCooling and Man Adapts...
On Apr 4, 9:06*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:02*am, bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. * *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. * *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. * *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. * *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. * *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. * *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. * *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. * *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? * *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. * *It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. * *Sound familiar? * *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. * *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. * *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. * *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. * *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. * *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. * *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. * *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. * *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate. * *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. * *Look it up. * *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. * *Which raises the REAL question..... * *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? * *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Peter, I've looked it up. *As a weather scientist I studied it. You're incorrect. *Period. Bruce- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Here - try this on for size. *http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html For starters. *The evidence is abundant from one REAL scientific source after another that humans pump out orders of magnitude more GHG than volcanoes, even big ones. Bruce Jensen- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Here is something else that everyone should read. GHG studies and greenhouse warming concerns are not a Johnny-come-lately issue, nor are they near the beginning of a series of questionable experiments. The science has been studied to death for a century and half, and the vectors of virtually every experiment and investigation performed on this topic point toward human-induced global temperature increase and climatological disruption. The predictions of the models are coming true, accounting fully for every known natural and artificial source of climate change agents. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#survey Bruce |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCooling and Man Adapts...
On Apr 4, 2:50*am, RHF wrote:
On Apr 3, 4:04*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from *wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. No Since China ans Soon India will be Surpassing the USA Europe and Japan in GHG / CO2 Pollution : They Too Should Be Required to Stop / Not Start [.] IT IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM : NOT A USA ONLY PROBLEM First : Regressive Wealth Transfer Taxes are Not the Answer ! * NOT BY EXCESSIVE ENERGY USE TAXES THAT'S WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-SOCIALISM} -say-no-no-no-to-more-obama-taxes-taxes-taxes- Second : Cleaner Energy and More Efficient Energy Use is the Answer : Not Cap-and-Trade * NOT BY CUTTING REDUCING ENERGY USE THAT'S ENERGY REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-FASCISM} -say-yes-yes-yes-to-more-cleaner-and better-energy- *. . China The Biggest Contributor To Global Warming !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...3cdd909d9aca38 *. Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ? It's Global Warming a/o Cooling ! -or-just-a-myth-http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2dc57e40acfa220b *. 'Special-Dave' -proclaims- 7 Out of 10 Americans are Misinformed About Current Eventshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/cf725874f92724c4 JfK have 'you' ever considered that 'you' are One-of-the-those-Seven ? -all-things-are-possible- ~ RHF =hey='i'=might=be=too= *.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Warpity warp warp warp. |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCoolingand Man Adapts...
On Apr 4, 3:18*am, dxAce wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. * *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. * *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. * *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. * *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. * *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. * *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. * *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. * *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? * *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. * *It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. * *Sound familiar? * *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. * *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. * *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. * *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. * *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. * *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. * *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. * *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. * *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate. * *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. * *Look it up. * *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. * *Which raises the REAL question..... * *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? * *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now. I'm looking forward to his, and others, fantasy response! dxAce Michigan USA- Hide quoted text - When you have the slightest ****ing idea what you're talking about, get back to us. |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCoolingandMan Adapts...
bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 4, 3:18 am, dxAce wrote: "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. But no more. Because of the cooling climate. Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. Look it up. Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. Which raises the REAL question..... Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now. I'm looking forward to his, and others, fantasy response! dxAce Michigan USA- Hide quoted text - When you have the slightest ****ing idea what you're talking about, get back to us. Man made global warming is a hoax. Personally, I don't care if you and others fall for a hoax. Problem is with this hoax is that not only you believers in the hoax are going to get fleeced, but those of us who do not are going to be fleeced (via government taxes) as well. |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCooling and Man Adapts...
On Apr 4, 12:12*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:06*am, bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 4, 9:02*am, bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote: the 'myth' of global warming/cooling is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote: Man made is a 'myth'? 1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and India demand more cars and demand more electricity) Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. - Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me. On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote: Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't ! Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths Own Cyclic* XX% So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity? Nice tap dance, but no cigar. * *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. * *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. * *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more. * *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass. * *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable fraction of that mass. * *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus. * *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2 sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age. * *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why? * *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it. * *It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral obligation to curtail our own energy usage. * *Sound familiar? * *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve. * *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. * *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic reality is: change. * *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star), confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles. * *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and predictable patterns. And all of natural cause. * *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the myth crashes around the proponents' ears. * *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no longer because of the cooling climate. * *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon miles of them. * *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate. * *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries. * *Look it up. * *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent with your preferences. * *Which raises the REAL question..... * *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it? * *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Peter, I've looked it up. *As a weather scientist I studied it. You're incorrect. *Period. Bruce- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Here - try this on for size. *http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html For starters. *The evidence is abundant from one REAL scientific source after another that humans pump out orders of magnitude more GHG than volcanoes, even big ones. Bruce Jensen- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Here is something else that everyone should read. *GHG studies and greenhouse warming concerns are not a Johnny-come-lately issue, nor are they near the beginning of a series of questionable experiments. The science has been studied to death for a century and half, and the vectors of virtually every experiment and investigation performed on this topic point toward human-induced global temperature increase and climatological disruption. *The predictions of the models are coming true, accounting fully for every known natural and artificial source of climate change agents. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#survey Bruce- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Al Gore has friends in very high places , indeed . . . |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and Global Coolingand Man Adapts...
I will respond to you only because you are so wrong on so many points
and with great reluctance (for reasons explained at the end of this epistle). Also, let me preface my comments by saying that I never said warming was caused -solely- by man. Yes, there are natural cycles, but that is no reason for us to add fuel to fire, so to speak. On 4/3/2011 9:28 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural sources...most notably from volcanism. One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released. Bzzzzt! Wrong! 1) Check the references from several previous posters. Man has generated a lot more CO2. 2) Look at the 50,000 year old ice samples containing carbon dioxide. At the most modern (latest) end of the curve, it is almost exponential and asymptotic. How odd that all that volcanic activity you talk about occurred at the very latest end of the curve. A reasonable, intelligent person would probably presume that volcanic activity occurred relatively evenly distributed throughout the 50,000 year period of the ice core samples. In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2. A *positive* feedback cycle. The warming caused by our putting CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer, which then according to you, would cause the oceans to release even more CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. Yes indeed a "symptom", a symptom of all the CO2 we are dumping in the atmosphere. It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism. Your point is non-provable -- it is like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. I contend the "eco-political activism" came about because a problem was detected and scientists are concerned enough to try and do something about it. And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has increased his own energy usage... Bzzzt! Wrong again. Not to mention any names either, "he" has REDUCED his energy usage by installing solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs. "Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design. His improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period. Also, you are "conveniently" overlooking some other important facts. 1) "His" Nashville house is FOUR times the size of the average Nashville house, so it would be reasonable to assume that it uses at least four times the 'average' energy usage. 2) It is a DUAL purpose house, serving as an office for him, for his wife and both of their staffs. It may be just a wee bit disingenuous of you to compare a residential/*commercial* location to just a residential location. Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered the state of the art. First, you are comparing W's -newly built- house to one that was built years ago. Again, a bit disingenuous of you to compare their energy usage on an equal basis. As you are clueless as to why I despise your hero, let me give you a clue: I do not care in the least about W's electric bill. I DO loathe him for *lying* us into -two- bogus wars, ****ing away a TRILLION dollars of our national treasury, the deaths of 5000 of our children and the horrible maiming and mutilation of thousands more of our children. Heck of a job, Georgie! (and to anticipate any comments, I don't think Obama should have gone into Libya). Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government: 1934. Bzzzzt! Wrong yet again! Per other posters (who quote Chapter and Verse), what you say is NOT true. Finally, as to why I respond to you with great reluctance... When your ex-wife first married you, she probably thought you were "Mr. Right"; however, she may not have realized at the time that your first name was "Always". It's generally futile to deal with a person who thinks he is Always Right and who has no qualms about blurring the line between disingenuous and dishonest. |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and Global Coolingand Man Adapts...
On 4/4/2011 4:09 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:
Don't forget one very important (carbon sequestration) vector that man has most undeniably affected adversely: the forests. Massive deforestation cannot help but effect not only nature's largest vector for sequestration of atmospheric CO2, but also the production of O2. Now you've touched on the one war I would support: a war against those mowing down the rain forests. |
The Earth Goes Through Cycles of Global Warming and GlobalCool...
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...ry+of+Volcanos
Volcanos Happen.They have been doing their thingy for many Millions of Years.They will keep on Happening too.We can NOT Stop them! cuhulin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com