Global Warming

RicodJour wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Not nearly as stupid as someone who is willing to believe that the earth
isn't stable.

Look who's commenting on stability. Thanks, I needed a chuckle!

Dumbass,

He hasn't core dumped in years. What you're taking as instability
is a design feature.

Bob Schwartz

In article ,
Bob Schwartz wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Not nearly as stupid as someone who is willing to believe that the earth
isn't stable.

Look who's commenting on stability. Thanks, I needed a chuckle!

Dumbass,

He hasn't core dumped in years.

Oh dear. http://tinyurl.com/5tpxv6

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
wrote:

On Apr 2, 3:06*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?





Dumbass -


It hasn't cycled at this rate in at least 100,000 years (based upon
ice cores).


Read it again: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/...0-11-0589a.pdf

The conditions described for 1922 are much more severe (or mild) than anything
even the most fanatic global warmists have recently claimed.

Of course there's climate change. There has never been anything else.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:10:12 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
wrote:

On Apr 10, 5:02*pm, Jack Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni

wrote:
John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all plan on doing
something to reduce carbon emissions.

And just exactly what would that be? *Presidents don't make laws,
Congress does. *

Any international treaty must be approved by the Senate. *When the
Senate got wind that Clinton wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty it passed
a resolution condemning the treaty 95-0. *Clinton, sent Al Gore to
sign the treaty, which he did, but Clinton never sent it to the Senate
for ratification.



Dumbass -


It's a decade later. The Democrats will control Congress. The balance
of public opinion has swung the other way because of the relentless
amount of scientific evidence that supports the theory.

It's a decade later and worldwide carbon emissions have increased by 18%. Among
parties to Kyoto they have increased by 21%. US carbon emissions have increased
only 6% now shut the **** up.

The three remaining presidential candidates have the same opinion on
that issue for a reason.

Yes, they are politicians seeking power and this is an excuse to claim more of
it while enriching their friends.

You've got no horse in the race buddy. Get used to it.

Been up against stupid fads before and swatted 'em down before. Nothing new.

Dumbass

wrote in message
...

Been up against stupid fads before and swatted 'em down before. Nothing
new.

What is really surprising is the age of the extremist Liberals here. You'd
think that 50 years of massive disappointment from their leaders might have
clued them in, but no.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?





Dumbass -

^
|
Agreed. The sun has no link to climate change:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

Bob Schwartz wrote:
He hasn't core dumped in years.

**** OR GET OFF THE POT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Apr 10, 8:55*pm, wrote:


You've got no horse in the race buddy. Get used to it.

Been up against stupid fads before and swatted 'em down before. Nothing new.



Dumbass -


You and which presidential candidate?

Obama? Clinton? McCain?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

wrote in
:


It's a decade later and worldwide carbon emissions have increased by
18%. Among parties to Kyoto they have increased by 21%. US carbon
emissions have increased only 6% now shut the **** up.


Hard to see only a 6% increase for CO2 in plots like this:

http://images.wri.org/chart_us_eu_emissions_90_04.gif

(details he http://tinyurl.com/4smcp5)

and this:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...ts/fotw464.gif

No matter how you slice it, the US is more than holding up its share of
the increase in total CO2 emissions. You might be thinking of greenhouse
gas intensity, which was the Bush Administration's way of making you feel
better about yourself when in fact there was no reason you should.

Remember, I'm here to help.

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" wrote in message
...

Remember, I'm here to help.

So what do you drive again?