The Writing is on the Wall

On Feb 26, 11:13 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message

... Explain this - the Senate voted 97 to nothing AGAINST the Kyoto
Protocols. What do you know that they didn't?

Hmm. Good point. That's the same senate that took at face value only
the part of the intelligence information that said Iraq had WMDs.
Didn't bother to look any further.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I'm with Tom on this one. There are too many reputable scientists who
doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change.

dumbass,

don't be vague. what do you mean by "there are too many reputable
scientists who doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change" ?

either it has a role or it doesn't. do you mean there are reputable
scientists that believe CO2 doesn't radiatively force the atmosphere ?

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by solar
cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.

dumbass,

put your money where your mouth is.

let's agree to a standard which will prove or disprove your statement,
and i will bet you $500 that your statement is wrong.

How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
statement.

Phil H

On Feb 26, 11:38 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com... On Feb 26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by solar
cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.

dumbass,

put your money where your mouth is.

let's agree to a standard which will prove or disprove your statement,
and i will bet you $500 that your statement is wrong.

How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
statement.

dumbass,

be specific. for example i don't consider tim ball to be a scientist.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 26, 11:13 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message

... Explain
this - the Senate voted 97 to nothing AGAINST the Kyoto
Protocols. What do you know that they didn't?

Hmm. Good point. That's the same senate that took at face value
only
the part of the intelligence information that said Iraq had WMDs.
Didn't bother to look any further.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I'm with Tom on this one. There are too many reputable scientists who
doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change.

dumbass,

don't be vague. what do you mean by "there are too many reputable
scientists who doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change" ?

either it has a role or it doesn't. do you mean there are reputable
scientists that believe CO2 doesn't radiatively force the atmosphere ?

No, I mean that some believe CO2 is not a big player in the overall
scheme and change over the last few decades is too short a period to
predict long term trends. Here's a start......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Phil H

I'm with Tom on this one. There are too many reputable scientists who
doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change. Anyone who says this is a
moral issue and not a political one (Al Gore when winning his part of an
Oscar) is either a liar or an idiot. Having said that, I'll go with a
reduction in CO2 emissions if it means reducing our dependence on oil. Yeh
well, you can see how the politics come into play.


speaking of Gore,
Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"
Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in
news
snip

I'm with Tom on this one. There are too many reputable scientists who
doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change. Anyone who says this
is a moral issue and not a political one (Al Gore when winning his
part of an Oscar) is either a liar or an idiot. Having said that, I'll
go with a reduction in CO2 emissions if it means reducing our
dependence on oil. Yeh well, you can see how the politics come into
play.

This isn't like plate tectonics, where the old guard dug in their heels
and made life hell for Dietz and Hess even though what they proposed was
a blindingly obvious truth. The "reputable scientists" who doubt the
role of CO2 in climate are more like Pete Duesberg, who, against the
mass of evidence arrayed against him, is still to this day convinced
AIDS is caused by an immune response to anal sex and amyl nitrate and
not HIV.

--
Bill Asher

wrote in message
s.com...
On Feb 26, 11:38 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com... On Feb
26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by
solar
cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.

dumbass,

put your money where your mouth is.

let's agree to a standard which will prove or disprove your
statement,
and i will bet you $500 that your statement is wrong.

How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
statement.

dumbass,

be specific. for example i don't consider tim ball to be a scientist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Phil H

On Feb 27, 12:14 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

s.com...



On Feb 26, 11:38 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com... On Feb
26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by
solar
cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.

dumbass,

put your money where your mouth is.

let's agree to a standard which will prove or disprove your
statement,
and i will bet you $500 that your statement is wrong.

How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
statement.

dumbass,

be specific. for example i don't consider tim ball to be a scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen


dumbass,

lindzen has a theory that rising CO2 levels would trigger a negative
feedback on temperature. but even he wouldn't agree with tom that the
recent change change in solar forcing is greater than the recent
change in CO2 forcing.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022600733.html

Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
Oregon's governor.

Unconstitional.

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 27, 12:14 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

s.com...



On Feb 26, 11:38 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com... On
Feb
26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by
solar
cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.

dumbass,

put your money where your mouth is.

let's agree to a standard which will prove or disprove your
statement,
and i will bet you $500 that your statement is wrong.

How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with
Tom's
statement.

dumbass,

be specific. for example i don't consider tim ball to be a
scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen


dumbass,

lindzen has a theory that rising CO2 levels would trigger a negative
feedback on temperature. but even he wouldn't agree with tom that the
recent change change in solar forcing is greater than the recent
change in CO2 forcing.

Sounds like a need to establish a basis for the disagreement. I'm
suggesting it should be the effect of CO2 levels on long term climate
change.

Phil H