Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!

On 2/19/07 9:32 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

On Feb 19, 10:13 pm, patch70 patch70.2ma...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
Wrote:

Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest
(ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will
more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in
the US.

We'd lose everything.

What the? A truly bizarre argument.

The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a
salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And smart CEOs would realise
that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to
make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2
producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible
pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be
the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore
offset any lost profits.

I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
China and India lead the way".

--
patch70

Nothing bizarre about it at all. First, you have to understand it's
not just about you and your car. If you factor in the costs to
industry to meet the Kyoto protocol requirement, which by the way the
industries of China and India, and the rest of the developing world
for that matter, don't have to meet, you'd see that what we're really
talking about is a UN effort to equalize the economies of the world by
destroying the US economy, not by bringing up the economies of the
rest of the world.

I'm not asking China or India to lead anything. What I really would
like is for the "oh, ****, the sky is falling" crowd to acknowledge
that there's an almost non-existent correlation between CO2 emissions
and temperatures, but a 100% correlation between the fluctuations of
world temperatures and sunspot activity.

Hell, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 put more pollutants into the
atmosphere in one fell swoop than man has in the history of mankind.

The sky is not falling.

Fred



And Oprah is not running for president......

But, be still my beating heart, they will keep dreaming and hoping

ST Wrote:
How about all the UAW union jobs?
And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??


Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you might
have
to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.

Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included in
Kyoto..

By your reasoning, then it was a disaster that Germany was defeated in
World War II because all those poor gas chamber operators lost their
jobs.


--
patch70

in 536664 20070220 053213 wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:13 pm, patch70 patch70.2ma...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
Wrote:

Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest
(ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will
more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in
the US.

We'd lose everything.

What the? A truly bizarre argument.

The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a
salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And smart CEOs would realise
that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to
make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2
producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible
pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be
the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore
offset any lost profits.

I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
China and India lead the way".

--
patch70

Nothing bizarre about it at all. First, you have to understand it's
not just about you and your car. If you factor in the costs to
industry to meet the Kyoto protocol requirement, which by the way the
industries of China and India, and the rest of the developing world
for that matter, don't have to meet, you'd see that what we're really
talking about is a UN effort to equalize the economies of the world by
destroying the US economy, not by bringing up the economies of the
rest of the world.

I'm not asking China or India to lead anything. What I really would
like is for the "oh, ****, the sky is falling" crowd to acknowledge
that there's an almost non-existent correlation between CO2 emissions
and temperatures, but a 100% correlation between the fluctuations of
world temperatures and sunspot activity.

Hell, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 put more pollutants into the
atmosphere in one fell swoop than man has in the history of mankind.

The sky is not falling.

Fred

You seem to have a poor grasp of the facts, Fred.
The pollutants in the atmosphere are actually hiding the true effects of
CO2 emissions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog..._summary.shtml

Is it coincidence that there is more scepticism about AGW in the USA than amywhere else?

On Feb 19, 10:32 pm, wrote:

Nothing bizarre about it at all. First, you have to understand it's
not just about you and your car. If you factor in the costs to
industry to meet the Kyoto protocol requirement, which by the way the
industries of China and India, and the rest of the developing world
for that matter, don't have to meet, you'd see that what we're really
talking about is a UN effort to equalize the economies of the world by
destroying the US economy, not by bringing up the economies of the
rest of the world.

Right, because the Black Helicopter thing didn't pan out.
People made the same forecasts of economic ruin to fight
emissions controls on industry, smokestacks, and auto
tailpipes. It wasn't true then either. Have a little
faith in American ingenuity.

I'm not asking China or India to lead anything. What I really would
like is for the "oh, ****, the sky is falling" crowd to acknowledge
that there's an almost non-existent correlation between CO2 emissions
and temperatures, but a 100% correlation between the fluctuations of
world temperatures and sunspot activity.

RBR only has room for one sunspot psychoceramic
fracture-specialist and Kunich claimed that position
months or years ago. Correlation does not imply
causation, and as Bill Asher was pointing out a
little while back, the low-sunspot period 500 years
ago coincided with a North Atlantic cooling, not a
global cooling.

Hell, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 put more pollutants into the
atmosphere in one fell swoop than man has in the history of mankind.

The sky is not falling.

Indeed it is not. It's the water rising we're worried
about. Krakatoa put ash into the atmosphere, not CO2
nor other greenhouse gases.

Ben

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:22:08 GMT, "ST" wrote:

http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wf...rticleid=12990

You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Feb 20, 1:22 am, "ST" wrote:
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wf...rticleid=12990

February 15, 2007
Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
By Alan Caruba
(AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -

As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
"could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
for an alternative source of information.



More bull, like that propagated by your dear president. This kind of
horsesh*t was quoted by pro-oil businesses and their scientists (and,
of course, Bush himself) in trying to make out that global warming was
all nonsense. It's not, it's real, the icecaps are melting and there
is undeniable proof of all that.

From environment.newscientist.com

Instant Expert: Climate Change

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the
future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in
disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of
Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods.
Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat
waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in
ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is
now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have
all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth
has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period
when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles
and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal
inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the
pipeline.

Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human
activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will
accelerate this warming.

-------


from http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...016244,00.html

Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice
caps


David Adam, environment correspondent

Monday February 19, 2007


A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be
inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are
preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and
Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50%
chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided"
because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the
scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and
inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging"
efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable
areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance
of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low".

The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused
by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets' demise,
and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences. Areas such as
the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the
Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including
London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding.

The warning appears in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which assesses the likely impacts of global warming
and will be published in April. A final draft of the report's summary-
for-policymakers chapter, obtained by the Guardian, says: "Very large
sea level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in
coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in
river deltas.

"Relocating populations, economic activity and infrastructure would be
costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that both ice
sheets would be committed to partial deglaciation for a global average
temperature increase greater than 1-2C, causing sea level rise of 4-6m
over centuries to millennia." Medium confidence means about a five in
10 chance.

The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas
emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been
disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of
the UK's contribution to global warming. According to a report by
Christian Aid, only 16 of Britain's top 100 listed companies are
meeting the government's most elementary reporting guidelines on
greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, almost 200m tonnes of damaging
CO2 is estimated to be missing from the annual reports of FTSE 100
companies. The figure is more than the annual reported emissions of
Pakistan and Greece combined.

This month the IPCC published a separate study on the science of
climate change, which concluded that humans are "very likely" to be
responsible for most of the recent warming, and that average
temperatures would probably increase by 4C this century if emissions
continue to rise. Even under its most optimistic scenario, based on a
declining world population and a rapid switch to clean technology,
temperatures are still likely to rise by 1.8C.

The new report is expected to say this means there is "a significant
probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice
sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas
emissions and the inertia of the climate system". Scientists involved
with the IPCC process cannot talk publicly about its contents before
publication. But a senior author on the report said: "It's not rocket
science to realise that with the numbers coming out from the IPCC
[science report], the warming by the end of the century is enough to
do that." The report's conclusion poses a conundrum for governments of
how to address a problem that is inevitable but may not occur for
hundreds or thousands of years. "That's for the policy makers to
decide but it really is a very difficult question," the source said.
"Those are moral questions and the answer you give will depend very
much on which part of the world you live in."

Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona,
said the key question was not whether the ice sheets would break up,
but how quickly. Some models suggest rapid melting that would bring
sea level rises of more than a metre per century. "That would be much
harder for us to cope with," he says.

The IPCC science report predicted sea level rises of up to 0.59m by
the end of the century. But that does not include the possible
contribution from ice sheets, because the experts judged it too
unpredictable to forecast over short timescales.


-------

What agenda could scientists possibly have for faking such data? What
financial gain would be achieved? There is far more financial gain
possible for those who claim climate change is not real, that big
businesses can go on behaving as before, that oil companies don't have
to limit their production, that governments don't have to change their
policies. If any side has something to gain from untruths, it is those
who advocate doing nothing, who claim that all is fine.

Read the IPCC report, or articles about it. And stop writing bull****
pretending that the problem doesn't exist. You are like an ostrich
with it's head in the sand...wake up, smell the daisies and look with
open eyes at what is a huge amount of evidence, plus an ever-growing
number of scientists that agree. You are a flat-earther, nothing
else.

On Feb 20, 1:22 am, "ST" wrote:
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wf...rticleid=12990

February 15, 2007
Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
By Alan Caruba
(AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -

As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
"could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
for an alternative source of information.


From wikipedia:

Alan Caruba is a public relations advisor, best known as a critic of
environmentalism and Islam and, in 1990, founder of the National
Anxiety Center, a think tank dedicated to debunking the idea that
there is global warming and damage in the ozone layer.

Caruba's business website states that his clients have included
corporations, think tanks, trade associations and others. Since the
late 1980s, he has been the public relations counselor for the New
Jersey Pest Management Association and, for 10 years until 2005, he
served as the Director of Communications for the American Policy
Center." [1] In the 70s he played role in the introduction of the
carbamate insecticide bendiocarb [2], which was later withdrawn from
the market by its manufacturer.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Views
* 2 Publications
* 3 Accuracy
* 4 National Anxiety Center

[edit] Views

Caruba writes extensively on a wide variety of topics that include
energy issues, education, the United Nations, and popular culture. He
has claimed that global warming is a 'hoax' [3], denied that CFCs
damage the ozone layer, and criticised many other claims made by
environmentalists. He has criticized Sourcewatch, who criticized him
in return [4].

Caruba initially supported the Bush administration's war with Iraq,
but has since written to express a note of caution regarding the hoped-
for outcome.

He believes that:

The whole of America, Europe and other nations that are the
engines of the global economy, has been under attack by the
environmentalists because an evil, corrupt United Nations wants to be
an unelected global government and we stand in their way. This is why
the worldwide environmental movement is directed from the United
Nations. Behind the United Nations are those who subscribe still to
the failed economic theories of Marxism and who hate the success of
the United States and others who have embraced capitalism...They are the
ones seeking to destroy the sovereignty of the United States by
stealth, creating a North American Union to merge our nation with
Canada and Mexico, sinking the individual protections afforded by our
Constitution into a morass of regulations over which there will be no
vote by Americans. Global warming is the mask, the charade, the Big
Lie by which the destruction of the United States of America is being
advanced. "Global Warming on Steriods" Jan. 3, 2007


[edit] Publications

Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", widely excerpted on
conservative news and opinion websites. He is, for example, a regular
contributor to CNSnews.com, the Free Market News Network, and
AxcessNews.com.

In 2003, a collection of his columns was published, "Warning Signs",
by Merril Press. In late 2006, a new collection titled "Right Answers:
Separating Fact from Fantasy" was published.

Caruba is the author of several books dating back to the 1970's and
has contributed opinion pieces to consumer and trade magazines, as
well as to newspapers including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The
Providence Journal, and The Washington Times.

Caruba is a founding member of the National Book Critics Circle and
maintains a website on new fiction and non-fiction, [5]. He is also a
member of the Society of Professional Journalists, American Society of
Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of Science
Writers.

[edit] Accuracy

The accuracy of some of Caruba's articles has been called into
question, but he has never withdrawn or altered any of his weekly
commentaries. One example is a January 2003 article about mercury [6]
which has been disputed.

[edit] National Anxiety Center

The National Anxiety Center identifies itself as "a clearinghouse for
information about 'scare campaigns' designed to influence public
policy and opinion." The Center maintains a website at www.anxietycenter.com.




Not someone I would choose to believe...

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:13:23 +1100, patch70
wrote:

I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
China and India lead the way".

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that doesn't happen and soon. The
tipping point will arrive to where more is made from going green than
not, and most of those people that Kunich points to for support will
have crossed the room where the money is being made. One of them just
sold us a bunch of light bulbs.

I'm old enough to have grown up when we didn't have air conditioning
in cars even in Kansas and Texas, and the best part of the five and
dime was that they DID have air conditioning. Now they use air
conditioning in Maryland in the fall.

Being a godless liberal, I have faith enough in the intelligence of
humankind and the general direction of social evolution (Kunich
aside), that I believe that we are in the dither and blather period,
to be followed by the time when things are solved for the better. Its
not like we are talking about there not being solutions - the longer
looking arguments are about what will be the solution.

Well, except for Kunich and his ilk, which (pronoun chosen
deliberately, so don't give me a hard time) think that there is no
problem and no solution needed and everything is fine, but they
complain more than anyone else anyway.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:38:21 GMT, ST wrote:

Remember Dumbass, fossil fuels are produced mostly in OTHER countries. Why
do you assbags think the angry white man in America is the cause/cure?

How about all the UAW union jobs?
And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??

Well, it isn't about where they are produced and more about where they
are consumed. We're right there in the lead on that one.

Your lack of faith in the U.S. is illuminating, but not surprising.
And, no, I don't think Kunich is an idiot, I think he is a closed
minded conservative that borders on being a crackpot. That makes the
issue of whether he is a stupid or foolish person a moot point.

And he is so repetitive that I would guess that many on this list
could write his replies for him.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..

But we never have this discussion because we're to busy being amazed by
one idiot who contends that there is no consensus for global warming or
another crackpot who insists that everyone needs to buy hydrogen cars NOW.

And here all this time I thought we never have those discussions because
people like you are ******s and know absolutely nothing about the subject
except what your leader Al Bore tells you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us

"Their views contrast with the mainstream scientific opinion on climate
change, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001"

Here's the significant thing about that - the RELEASE of the 2001 IPCC
report has been held up for three months so that they could change the
scientific reports to MATCH THE SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS. They have even said
that!

So explain how ANYONE could tell us how people oppose the scientific "facts"
when they aren't even available?