|
|
And stop emailing me every time you make a post to rec.radio.shortwave... someone
with the intelligence you claim to have ought to be able to figure out how to do that! Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV What does that prove? That a bunch of other academic tin-foil hat wearers liked your story? Come on... Tsk, tsk, Steve. Can you provide any support for your "obvious" position? Deux Lare... It would in no way spur conservation, nor would it spur the economy (especially not ours). All it would do is facilitate the trading of another 'commodity', with the attendant money to be made by doing so. Tin-foil hat thinking indeed! Actually, such conservative pro-business groups as the US Chamber of Commerce have supported CO2 emission allottment trading. Since it would allow companies that come in under their allottments to sell their allottments to companies too economically burdened to improve their production efficiencies. Before you just wave this away, Steve, remember that GW Bush has already said the emission trading schemes DO work -- it was part of his justification for reducing air pollution regulations. If you won't support your arguments ( a waste of time in your words) could you at least make them a bit more sophisticated than simply saying "Because I said so, that's why!" Some of us obviously lack your vision of "obvious" truth. So, some support from reputable sources would be nice. If it's too much a waste of time, one wonders why your responses without support aren't a greater waste. Happy MLK Day! Bryant Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
From: N8KDV
You really think that 'most of the rest of the world' supports your way of thinking? Thanks for the great laugh to get my day started! I already provided the URL showing that over 90% of scientists across the world support the linkage between man-made greenhouse gases. I guess actually reading is far too great a waste of your time. The following link: http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html shows that the vast majority of governmental policy-makers across the planet believe that's there's enough evidence to support attempts to scale-back greenhouse emissions. Let's see, that's still zero support for YOUR obvious common sense counter-positions, right? Again, I ask: Why Does The EPA and State Dept under Bush recognize the linkage? Why has Bush never denied the connection? Does GW Bush not have the pipeline to obvious truth that God has provided Steve Lare? Having a bad day, Steve? Mike |
|
|
I really don't give a crap if the whole world wants to get together and cry
at the same time. It doesn't change the fact that it is a baseless emotional outburst. "Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: "CW" And, of course, they will offer no proof. Just supposition the way they always have. Brother stair has been predicting the end of the world. Do you believe that too? CW, If you really believe that global warming climate research is on par with one of Brother Stair's predictions you are ignoring the consensus of world scientists and the quiet admissions of your own right-wing administration: Consensus of world scientists support global warming http://www.law.pace.edu/env/energy/globalwarming.html Bush administration efforts recognize global warming http://www.globalchange.gov/ Global warming: Early warning signs http://www.climatehotmap.org/ Bush's EPA fact page on climate research http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/Climate.html Bush's State Dept: Co2 Control Helps Economy http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ceCenterPublic ationsUSClimateActionReport.html Most people would opt to be, at least, precautious. You really should stop basing your scientific conclusions on the babbling of right-wing AM talk show hosts. (Just to make this OT! ;-) I had a debate team win a national championship suggesting that using the marketplace to trade emission allottments would spur conservation and spur the economy. The evidence is strong. Please list your counter-URLs so we can compare the quality of opposing evidentiary sources. I have 1000s more URLs if you're interested... Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
Bryant, you were straitening up there for a while but I see you have
reverted to idiot mode again. "Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: N8KDV Hmmm... there is no dispute that there is indeed global warming. The dispute arises when the tin-foil hat crowd suggests that it is manmade. The historical and geological record bear this out. Actually, Steve, if you had read the links I provided, you would have seen that there is a rather significant consensus of both scientists and policy-makers that man-made greenhouse gases are indeed one of the major contributors to global warming. This link has been recognized by both Bush's EPA and Dept of State. GW's objections to Kyoto were not based on indictments of any scientific linkages, but on the notion that the restrictions on CO2 emissions weren't applied equally to all nations. Calling the vast majority of scientists part of "tin foil hat crowd" is a technique that orininated with Rush Limbaugh. Do you also agree with him that there are no significant risks we face with the quickly accelerating pace of extinctions of animal species? If you do, that's your right, but ignoring the vast consensus of scientists across the planet makes you look a bit tin-foilish to me. Can you offer any URLs to support your counter-claims? A comparison of source qualifications would be VERY interesting. With all due respect, Mike Bryant Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
|
|
Michael Bryant wrote:
From: "CW" Bryant, you were straitening up there for a while but I see you have reverted to idiot mode again. Yep, I'm a good guy as long as I don't correct your factual innaccuracies. But stand up against your ignorance, and I'm an idiot. I think most of us can decide on our own who is the greater idiot. Still no support for your position, CW? Not a single URL? Relax, be happy, it's MLK Day! Bryant Hey Bryant Here's a link you might find interesting: http://www.globalwarming.org/ |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV I never said that! You are trying to put words in my mouth! Typical debate stuff. OK, show me where you've any support other than you're own claims to the obvious. This is not academic debate Bryant, you are no longer in academia, get over it! This is the 'real world'! There you go making assumptions, again, Steve. Can you prove I'm no longer in academia? Do you want to put money on that assumption? Really. So, is there no such thing as a "real-world" academician? If I got a job teaching electronics at a vocational school, would that make me a "real-world" academician? I guess it boils down to one question: What support can you provide, Steve, for anything you say that is not related to radio? And since when is Dxing 18 hours a day qualifications to be in the "real world"? ;-) When did I claim to DX 18 hours a day? Actually I spend very little time actually DXing these days... don't have to! ;-) Celebrating both my birthday and MLK. Happy Birthday! Mike Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV And stop emailing me every time you make a post to rec.radio.shortwave... someone with the intelligence you claim to have ought to be able to figure out how to do that! You know I know how... Just had side bets riding on how long it would take you to make your stock complaints.... Not a stock complaint, a long running one though, because you haven't learned yet how not to do it? Glad you're at least making something on the bet! I think I'll make sure to add my SWLing call sign just to make you whine more. I pay little attention to insignificant things! Like SWL callsigns! Where are those URLs, Steve? Mike, Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: "CW" I really don't give a crap if the whole world wants to get together and cry at the same time. It doesn't change the fact that it is a baseless emotional outburst. Read the URLs, CW. The scientific evidence is pretty conclusive. In the light of your refusal to post any URLs containing counter-evidence it seems that the baseless emotional outburst is just one more of your "emissions" that can be traced back to you. The only thing conclusive is that you believe em! Nothing less, nothing more! If the overwhelming amount of scientists can produce evidence and all you can do is say "It ain't so!" who do you think is performing the emotional outburst? Happy MLK Day! Bryant |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV You really think that 'most of the rest of the world' supports your way of thinking? Thanks for the great laugh to get my day started! I already provided the URL showing that over 90% of scientists across the world support the linkage between man-made greenhouse gases. I guess actually reading is far too great a waste of your time. The following link: http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html shows that the vast majority of governmental policy-makers across the planet believe that's there's enough evidence to support attempts to scale-back greenhouse emissions. Let's see, that's still zero support for YOUR obvious common sense counter-positions, right? Again, I ask: Why Does The EPA and State Dept under Bush recognize the linkage? Why has Bush never denied the connection? Does GW Bush not have the pipeline to obvious truth that God has provided Steve Lare? Having a bad day, Steve? No, but apparently you are! Even though it's your Birthday and MLK day to boot! I rarely have a bad day. If it sucks to be you, so be it! When it sucks to be me, then I'll worry! Mike |
|
|
In article , N8KDV
writes: I have 1000s more URLs if you're interested... Hmmm... there is no dispute that there is indeed global warming. The dispute arises when the tin-foil hat crowd suggests that it is manmade. The historical and geological record bear this out. Granted, you have natural fluctuations in earths tempurature; Add greenhouse gases into the mix, and you have something else to consider. read the Daily " Hockey Stick" paper; He makes a reference to " Urban Heat Islands" messing up historical data.. " At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. " Urban heat islands are never mentioned again in his paper. they weren't around in the 1700's and again , add something new to the mix. Heat Islands.. Greenhouse gases. So - Possibly if enough people wore aluminum foil hats, it might radiate enough energy out into space to counteract the effect of Greenhouse gases , heat Islands et al; - You go first.. ! Happy MLK & MW Bryant Birthdays.. Dan |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: "Mark S. Holden" Here's a link you might find interesting: http://www.globalwarming.org/ Thanks for being intellectual enough to at least provide a single URL. Actually, I know this URL very well, already. As a debate coach, it was my responsibility to prepare arguments on both the negative and affirmative. This URL is looked upon as one of the primary negative sources on the issue of greenhouse warming. Here are the indictments that usually convinced judges to dismiss it: 1. It ignores the strong consensus in the scientific community. 2. Many of it's counter-claims, particularly scientific, are undocumented. They simply refuse to provide some important citations. Undoubtedly, this is to deter scrupilous examination of the sources of their counter-facts. 3. It assumes mandated CO2 levels when making projections about economic costs, largely ignoring effluent trading schemes. All their projections are worst-case when it comes to regulatory schemes. 4. The page admits their own bias. If you check under the About this Site link, you'll see that this organization was created years ago to dispel global warming. They won't even admit, as Steve does, that climate has been warming. They're still promulgating those old faulty CIA studies on cooling taking place. 5. This is not a group of scientists running this webpage. They are right-wing political activists. They use the common tactic of ignoring data that doesn't fit within their paradigm. Their primary concern, as can be seen by their first link, is discrediting Gore as extremist. They are POLITICAL, not SCIENTIFIC. Gore is indeed a political extremist. I am not saying that everything at this site is wrong. When you look at the totality of evidence produced on both sides (a daunting task that I've been attempting for years) there are legitimate scientific points to be made from both sides. But there are means of policy action that won't destroy our economy. No one is seriously saying we should stop all fossil fuels anytime soon. But given the enormous implications for human survival tied to climate chane, along with a host of other reasons (including independence from reliance on MidEastern oil supplies!!) we should immediately start embracing fuel efficiency incentives such as effluent trading schemes. There is a good negative argument that any reforms are too late, that the damage is so well along that we can't do much. But, I remain optimistic that the sooner we stop sticking our heads in the sand, the more optimistic we can all be about future human survival. Thanks, Mark, for returning some modicum of intelligence to this discourse. Oh, so I'm not intelligent huh? LMAO... you need to take more holidays... I've read some excellent diatribes in the past, but this is a good one! I hope you're having a great MLK Day! Mike Bryant Come on, put your SWL callsign in here! |
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Read the URLs, CW. The scientific evidence is pretty conclusive. In the light of your refusal to post any URLs containing counter-evidence it seems that the baseless emotional outburst is just one more of your "emissions" that can be traced back to you. The only thing conclusive is that you believe em! Nothing less, nothing more! No, you're wrong. The other conclusive thing is that no matter how much scientific evidence and consensus exists (or will ever exist), we can count on your "common sense" to trump it. Come on, Steve! You can do better than the weak one-line responses you've limited yourself to this morning. Weak? A matter of opinion I suppose! One line? Perhaps, but that's all it really takes to oppose the wearers of tin-foil hats. And actually, I don't think Rush uses the tin-foil hat remark to much. He likes 'Extremist Environmental Whackos' much more I believe. Smile, it's MLK Day! Bryant, not sending a copy to your mailbox, OK, Steve? Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Gore is indeed a political extremist. That's sweet coming from a guy who just posted in another thread that Rush Limbaugh is a good programming choice. But he is indeed a good programming choice! The stations that carry Rush are reaping a windfall! Can you deny that Rush makes money for a station that carrys his program? The programming guru's that put Rush on their stations are being lauded! But, I can bet that you'll have an arguement and 1000's of URL's to dispute that Rush is a good programming choice! But as I said, that's the world of debate and academia! Come to think of it, there a lot of tin-foil hats in academia, and I'm sure a good number of them dislike Rush. Jealousy! Isn't there a saying along the lines of those who can do, those who can't teach? To be honest, I'm not a big Gore fan. But his environmental book was mainstream in the science community. I can point to hundred of science books supporting every thing he wrote. Bryant |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Having a bad day, Steve? No, but apparently you are! Even though it's your Birthday and MLK day to boot! I rarely have a bad day. If it sucks to be you, so be it! When it sucks to be me, then I'll worry! Well, I'm pretty happy to be me. Happy enough to enjoy showing folks that even Master Centurion DXers don't really grasp non-radio issues that well. LOL... methinks you have a highly inflted opinion of yourself! You're making gross assumtions again, much like you are making about global warming! I have a good grasp of many, many non-radio related issues. I just don't have a grasp on tin-foil hat thinking! I'll leave that to you, a non-Master DX Centurian. I earned mine! so I flaunt it! Ten posts from you and none of them saying anything of substance or offering a bit of counter-support. Thank goodness that most conservative commentators put a little more energy into their efforts. ;-) Yes, they do. You finally noticed that I'm not a conservative commentator, that's progress on your part! Bryant |
From: N8KDV
But he is indeed a good programming choice! The stations that carry Rush are reaping a windfall! Can you deny that Rush makes money for a station that carrys his program? The programming guru's that put Rush on their stations are being lauded! But, I can bet that you'll have an arguement and 1000's of URL's to dispute that Rush is a good programming choice! But as I said, that's the world of debate and academia! Come to think of it, there a lot of tin-foil hats in academia, and I'm sure a good number of them dislike Rush. Jealousy! Isn't there a saying along the lines of those who can do, those who can't teach? First, let me applaud your 2nd rate effort at pulling this conversation away from an area where you weren't doing that well! ;-) Oh yeah, Steve! Every college instructor I know of gets together with the other commies at 4pm and plots how to cope with Rush Limbaugh's true greatness. Yep, definitely our biggest concern... Yes, Rush's AM daytime dominance definitely proves his acumen and brilliance the same way Art Bell's nighttime dominance proved his speculations were right. Remember, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is doing well in the ratings. Does that prove anything about the show's extremism? Of course not. Maybe you could use a few of Rush's oxycontin tablets to calm down and be able to return to the global warming discussion. Waddya think? Mike |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV But he is indeed a good programming choice! The stations that carry Rush are reaping a windfall! Can you deny that Rush makes money for a station that carrys his program? The programming guru's that put Rush on their stations are being lauded! But, I can bet that you'll have an arguement and 1000's of URL's to dispute that Rush is a good programming choice! But as I said, that's the world of debate and academia! Come to think of it, there a lot of tin-foil hats in academia, and I'm sure a good number of them dislike Rush. Jealousy! Isn't there a saying along the lines of those who can do, those who can't teach? First, let me applaud your 2nd rate effort at pulling this conversation away from an area where you weren't doing that well! ;-) That's just your opinion. In my opinion you are doing quite poorly yourself! Oh yeah, Steve! Every college instructor I know of gets together with the other commies at 4pm and plots how to cope with Rush Limbaugh's true greatness. Yep, definitely our biggest concern... OK, OK, so they get together at 8 AM, what's the difference? Yes, Rush's AM daytime dominance definitely proves his acumen and brilliance the same way Art Bell's nighttime dominance proved his speculations were right. Remember, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is doing well in the ratings. Does that prove anything about the show's extremism? Of course not. I've heard of the show. You spend a lot of time watching it? ;-) Maybe you could use a few of Rush's oxycontin tablets to calm down and be able to return to the global warming discussion. Waddya think? I don't do drugs... you? I've been calm all day. It's you we're worried about! If I were you, (and thank the Great Spirit I am not), I'd be looking for more productive ways of spending my birthday! And, MLK's holiday to boot! LMAO Mike |
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Yes, they do. You finally noticed that I'm not a conservative commentator, that's progress on your part! Thank you. This goes into a word file. I promise you will see your words again!LOL... methinks you have a highly inflted opinion of yourself! You're making gross assumtions again, much like you are making about global warming! I have a good grasp of many, many non-radio related issues. I just don't have a grasp on tin-foil hat thinking! I'll leave that to you, a non-Master DX Centurian. I supported my arguments. You chose to make assertions without even an attempt at corroboration. Without really an attempt at counter-argument! So what? The correct spelling is "inflated," not inflted. No ****, Sherlock! Yup, I know how to spell too! I got's me a colluge degree too! Just as assumtions is actually spelled "assumptions." Thank goodness that Master Centurion DXers are so critical our society that they are not expected to spell. Keep feeding us that DX, Steve. Everyone needs an intrinsic purpose to justify spending 18 hours a day in front of their receiver. ;-) There ya go, making assumptions again! You accuse others of doing it, but you are indeed the Master! Mike |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Yes, they do. You finally noticed that I'm not a conservative commentator, that's progress on your part! Thank you. This goes into a word file. I promise you will see your words again!LOL... methinks you have a highly inflted opinion of yourself! You're making gross assumtions again, much like you are making about global warming! I have a good grasp of many, many non-radio related issues. I just don't have a grasp on tin-foil hat thinking! I'll leave that to you, a non-Master DX Centurian. I supported my arguments. You chose to make assertions without even an attempt at corroboration. Without really an attempt at counter-argument! The correct spelling is "inflated," not inflted. Just as assumtions is actually spelled "assumptions." Thank goodness that Master Centurion DXers are so critical our society that they are not expected to spell. Keep feeding us that DX, Steve. Sorry you can't find the DX on your own! Pitiful, just pitiful. ;-) Everyone needs an intrinsic purpose to justify spending 18 hours a day in front of their receiver. ;-) Mike |
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Yes, they do. You finally noticed that I'm not a conservative commentator, that's progress on your part! Thank you. This goes into a word file. I promise you will see your words again!LOL... methinks you have a highly inflted opinion of yourself! You're making gross assumtions again, much like you are making about global warming! I have a good grasp of many, many non-radio related issues. I just don't have a grasp on tin-foil hat thinking! I'll leave that to you, a non-Master DX Centurian. I supported my arguments. You chose to make assertions without even an attempt at corroboration. Without really an attempt at counter-argument! The correct spelling is "inflated," not inflted. Just as assumtions is actually spelled "assumptions." Thank goodness that Master Centurion DXers are so I can't spell! You can't read and retain! It's Master DX Centurion, not Master Centurion DXer...! LOL! GOTCHA! Or are you dyslexic? critical our society that they are not expected to spell. Keep feeding us that DX, Steve. Everyone needs an intrinsic purpose to justify spending 18 hours a day in front of their receiver. ;-) Mike |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Without really an attempt at counter-argument! So what? My comment and your response is sufficient to make my point. Keep feeding us that DX, Steve. Everyone needs an intrinsic purpose to justify spending 18 hours a day in front of their receiver. ;-) There ya go, making assumptions again! You accuse others of doing it, but you are indeed the Master! Ways to tell when Steve Lare is getting upset: 1. When he says he's not. 2. When he goes on the offensive and accuses you of it, first. 3. He loses all ability to discern humor. ;-) 4 He makes three posts to every single post you make. Enough's enough. Go listen to your radio, Centurion! I meant it when I said that you are the soul of this newsgroup. Which is kind of a sad testament.... ;-) Mike LOL... I take it you admit defeat? Somehow you always twist things to other people 'being upset' when you've lost. It must be the debaters way out. It's a documented fact! Google it! Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B Master DX Centurion (216 countries QSL'd) Proud descendant of the Miami Nation |
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV I can't spell! You can't read and retain! It's Master DX Centurion, not Master Centurion DXer...! LOL! GOTCHA! Or are you dyslexic? Well, yes, I am dyslexic. But don't worry, it's far more easily dealt with than that nasty social disease of obtuse conservatism that it appears you've picked up..... You've been a hoot, Steve. Definitely made me smile on my birthday. Don't change (as if that were even a remote possibility ;-) No chance of that happening! Mike Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
Can you offer any URLs to support your counter-claims? A comparison of
source qualifications would be VERY interesting. http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/hockey/hockey.htm http://spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...e/v6n7/hot.htm I read Gore's book when it first came out. In the back were the "footnotes." One of them was a rather long paragraph that conflicted with everything he'd written in the main body of text. I forget what it was about and I don't have the book (it was borrowed). What I wonder is why nontoxic CO2 is lumped with the toxic gasses that cause even more problems with our climate. Maybe the world's population should be reduced just to cut down on the amount of CO2 that is exhaled. Here's the breakdown of Earth's atmospheric gases: The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%). Note that water vapor, also a greenhouse gas although not so noted in this list I got off the Internet, averages many time greater than CO2. Bill, K5BY |
Bill [K5BY],
Once Again, Thank You for the Links :o) anik ~ RHF = = = And Now I Know ! .. .. = = = (WShoots1) = = = wrote in message ... Can you offer any URLs to support your counter-claims? A comparison of source qualifications would be VERY interesting. http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/hockey/hockey.htm http://spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...e/v6n7/hot.htm I read Gore's book when it first came out. In the back were the "footnotes." One of them was a rather long paragraph that conflicted with everything he'd written in the main body of text. I forget what it was about and I don't have the book (it was borrowed). What I wonder is why nontoxic CO2 is lumped with the toxic gasses that cause even more problems with our climate. Maybe the world's population should be reduced just to cut down on the amount of CO2 that is exhaled. Here's the breakdown of Earth's atmospheric gases: The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%). Note that water vapor, also a greenhouse gas although not so noted in this list I got off the Internet, averages many time greater than CO2. Bill, K5BY |
Bill [K5BY],
Once Again, Thank You for the Links :o) anik ~ RHF = = = And Now I Know ! .. .. = = = (WShoots1) = = = wrote in message ... Can you offer any URLs to support your counter-claims? A comparison of source qualifications would be VERY interesting. http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/hockey/hockey.htm http://spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...e/v6n7/hot.htm I read Gore's book when it first came out. In the back were the "footnotes." One of them was a rather long paragraph that conflicted with everything he'd written in the main body of text. I forget what it was about and I don't have the book (it was borrowed). What I wonder is why nontoxic CO2 is lumped with the toxic gasses that cause even more problems with our climate. Maybe the world's population should be reduced just to cut down on the amount of CO2 that is exhaled. Here's the breakdown of Earth's atmospheric gases: The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%). Note that water vapor, also a greenhouse gas although not so noted in this list I got off the Internet, averages many time greater than CO2. Bill, K5BY |
Stuff snipped
What I wonder is why nontoxic CO2 is lumped with the toxic gasses that cause even more problems with our climate. Maybe the world's population should be reduced just to cut down on the amount of CO2 that is exhaled. I remember hearing about a village in Cameroon that was essentially asphyxiated when a local volcano spewed out CO2 that blamketed the area. In that case, such a large quantity of CO2 given off in a short period of time was toxic enough to wipe out a village. There are a few good natural solutions to excess CO2 in the atmosphere. One is that the bodies of water in the world can act as a CO2 sink. The other solution are plants as they consume CO2 during photosynthesis. Maybe humanity should quit deforesting at an ugly rate? Here's the breakdown of Earth's atmospheric gases: The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%). Note that water vapor, also a greenhouse gas although not so noted in this list I got off the Internet, averages many time greater than CO2. Bill, K5BY That's the crux of the matter. Water vapour is in much greater quantities than CO2 in the atmosphere and does have an obsrvable day-to-day effect on local temperature. If you were to compare equal quantities of water vapour and CO2 then CO2's efficiency as a greenhouse gas becomes quite a bit greater than water vapour. Regards John Barnard |
JB,
"I remember hearing about a village in Cameroon that was essentially asphyxiated when a local volcano spewed out CO2 that blamketed the area. In that case, such a large quantity of CO2 given off in a short period of time was toxic enough to wipe out a village." ? TOXIC ? In this case it is Oxygen Displacement (The normal AIR Mixture is being Replaced by another Gas.) Same thing happens in Grain Silos and old water wells. Try working in a Room full of Freon Ultra-Sonic Cleaners. http://inventors.about.com/library/i...rs/blfreon.htm jtfm ~ RHF .. .. = = = John Barnard = = = wrote in message ... Stuff snipped What I wonder is why nontoxic CO2 is lumped with the toxic gasses that cause even more problems with our climate. Maybe the world's population should be reduced just to cut down on the amount of CO2 that is exhaled. I remember hearing about a village in Cameroon that was essentially asphyxiated when a local volcano spewed out CO2 that blamketed the area. In that case, such a large quantity of CO2 given off in a short period of time was toxic enough to wipe out a village. There are a few good natural solutions to excess CO2 in the atmosphere. One is that the bodies of water in the world can act as a CO2 sink. The other solution are plants as they consume CO2 during photosynthesis. Maybe humanity should quit deforesting at an ugly rate? Here's the breakdown of Earth's atmospheric gases: The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%). Note that water vapor, also a greenhouse gas although not so noted in this list I got off the Internet, averages many time greater than CO2. Bill, K5BY That's the crux of the matter. Water vapour is in much greater quantities than CO2 in the atmosphere and does have an obsrvable day-to-day effect on local temperature. If you were to compare equal quantities of water vapour and CO2 then CO2's efficiency as a greenhouse gas becomes quite a bit greater than water vapour. Regards John Barnard |
RHF wrote: JB, "I remember hearing about a village in Cameroon that was essentially asphyxiated when a local volcano spewed out CO2 that blamketed the area. In that case, such a large quantity of CO2 given off in a short period of time was toxic enough to wipe out a village." It was not a volcano, but rather a volcanic lake. On 21 August 1986, Lake Nyos in Cameroon suffered a landslide which triggered the release of CO2 which was trapped under the lake. Approximately 1700 people were killed. There are apparently a good number of other lakes around the world where this phenomenon could occur again. Just to keep things in perspective, I recall hearing about this incident while monitoring shortwave! Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B "I swear by, not at, Drake receivers" © http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com