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)

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!"

I never said that! You are trying to put words in my mouth! Typical debate stuff.

This is not academic debate Bryant, you are no longer in academia, get over it!
This is the 'real world'!



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)

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

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"? ;-)

Celebrating both my birthday and MLK.

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)

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....

I think I'll make sure to add my SWLing call sign just to make you whine more.

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)

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)

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.

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

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