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?

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
t...
A major group scientific reports co-authored for the UN by many respected
scientists asserted that global warming was occurring several years ago.
Recently a large number of scientists from many disciplines signed onto a
report to the same effect. It will be published in the magazine "Nature"
soon I believe, or may already have been published there.

Leonar



In article , "CW"
wrote:

Prove that it is in the long term interest. That is all that anyone is
asking. No proof has been offered yet. Nothing but supposition.

"starman" wrote in message
...
That's the big question, whether we are willing to accept some negative
impacts on certain areas of the economy in the long term interest of
the
planet. The US is not known for doing particularly well in that regard.
The long term interests of our corporations seldom extends beyond the
next business quarter.

CW wrote:

Except economic. A lot of the proposed "fixes" are impractical.
"starman" wrote in message
...
There is a good chance we could at least do no more harm.

CW wrote:

If you don't know what you are doing, there is little chance you
will do
it
right. When I was a teenager, they were saying that the planet
was
cooling
and we were heading for another ice age.
"starman" wrote in message
...
Diverd4777 wrote:

Got down to 1 at around midnight, then started to "warm up"..
14 degrees outside now.

Big " Pack Ice " out on the Hudson River, all quite scenic

With the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in the last
100
years,
it's
tempting to leap over & make direct assertions about what
this,
and
other "
greenhouse gas" is doing..

If We are like fleas on a mamoth, a few causes no
disturbance,
but if you get a large mass of mammoth fleas,
they will cause some disturbance.
where and when and how much is not readily predictable, but
the
mammoth
will
eventually react .

Discerning signal to noise with C02 / Dust build up , etc.
over
the
last 100
years
,is difficult...

Of course the problem is by the time we figure it out it could
be
too
late to do anything about it. We may have already reached the
point of
no return but we won't realize it for several more decades.
That's
why
even the hardest skeptics are beginning to concede that we must
err on
the side of caution. The stakes are just too high to do
otherwise.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor

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)

Michael Bryant wrote:

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...

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.




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

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: 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.

Well you see, I don't waste my time chasing down links to try and dis-prove
something that is obviously false!

To do so, would be, well, foolish!





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)

From: N8KDV

Well you see, I don't waste my time chasing down links to try and dis-prove
something that is obviously false!

To do so, would be, well, foolish!

Well, Steve, if it's so obviously false, a few questions seem clear:

First, if there was counter-evidence on such a well-publicized issue, you'd
think it would be easy to find. Ever wonder why it can't be found from
reputable non-political sources?

Second, why are the vast majority of scientists and policy-makers supporting
such an obviously false bit of science? Remember, I provided URLs backing up my
claims.

Finally, why do GW Bush's EPA and State Departments recognize a strong link
between man-made greenhouse gases and global warming? Have you ever heard GW
Bush deny the connection? Could you provide any URLs at all? Or is
argumentative support really an unfair request upon anyone branding most of the
rest of the world as members of the "tin-foil hat crowd"?

Sorry to be wasting your time! ;-)

Bryant

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)

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

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: "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.

What does that prove? That a bunch of other academic tin-foil hat wearers liked
your story? Come on...

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!

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)