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

Michael Bryant wrote:

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! ;-)

No problem, I'm used to you doing that! :-)



Bryant

Michael Bryant wrote:

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

Most of the rest of the world? That in and of itself is a tin-foil hat statement if
I ever heard one... LOL

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!

as members of the "tin-foil hat crowd"?

Sorry to be wasting your time! ;-)

Bryant

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

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