Food for thought, global warming

"KPP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.

This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not the
global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"KPP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.

This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not the
global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Theres a lot of intersting information about cyclical sunspot activity
(and hence the increased output of solar radiation)being related to
increases or decreases in earth's land and ocean temperatures. Global
warming because of emissions isn't the only cause of increasing
temperatures but it is one we do have some control over.

Here are a couple on the sunspots

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

SD

On 24 Sep 2005 10:16:51 -0700, "KPP"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

garbage snipped

You can find thousands of pages on this stuff online by typing junk
science Kyoto.

A good place to start is www.junkscience.com and
www.iiap.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/paleoclimate/paleo
_lecture_new.html

The Kyoto blatherings were a farce. Countries that should of been
listed (China, India) were excempt and would not have been affected by
it no matter who else signed on to it just to be politicaly correct.

The idea that man causes global warming by using fossile fuel is bunk.
The idea that the US causes global warming(and that was the goal of
Kyoto) has been proven to be junk science. Computers show that less
than 3% of the air pollution in the US is carried past our borders.

Since February 2005, $90 trillion dollars in production has been lost
to achieve a maybe non temperature increase of .000940013 degree C by
2050.
In the US alone, $5 billion dollars a year are being spent global
warming research and alternative energy research.

No country can sustain a low estimated $120 billion dollar a year hit
to their economy to achieve a high estimated .02 degree C temperature
savings by 2050 to fully comply with Kyoto. That would be about a
$5,400 billion dollar hit on their economies.

To achieve a global Kyoto compliance, it is estimated that half the
worlds GDP output would have to end by 2050. What countries do we
sacrifice?

Poleo climate charts show the polar areas were from 3 to 8 degrees C
warmer 125-130 thousand years ago than they are today. Pollution
rates/temperature rise per 100 years were 5 times what they are today
prior to the industrial revolution also.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:29:29 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"KPP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.

This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not the
global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

So you disagree with this:
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_050731_hurricanes_stronger.html

And you disagree with this:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

OBFood: I think I'll have a steak for dinner tonight.

modom

Only superficial people don't judge by appearances.
-- Oscar Wilde

KPP said:

Do you think it might be a good time for President Bush to reconsider
signing the Kyoto agreement? He declined to earlier, deciding that
doing so, might adversely affect the economic prosperity of the United
States.

THere are two major problems there problems there. FIrst of all, his
buddies in the oil business are making record profits these days. Secondly,
he has a bad record of going along with the rest of the world. He likes to
think the US calls the shots and wants to lead the world, even if he is
leading us downhill.

Quoted message said:

We had hurricanes 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and ten thousand
years ago; were they do to Global Warming?

They're saying now that Mars is showing signs of Global Warming due to
the sun; can we blame that on the Kyoto Accord also?

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"KPP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.

This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not
the global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Horseshit. You are buying the propaganda of the oil and coal companies.
Essentially every climate scientist in the world agrees that human
activities are causing the climate to warm. And your assertion that "global
warming that has been going on for a million years or so" is so astoundingly
ignorant that I do not know how to respond. It's on the same level as "moon
made of green cheese" and "earth flat." Maybe you should learn something
about a topic before proclaiming.

Peter Aitken

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"KPP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.

This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not

the

Quoted message said:

global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Yep, the "global warming" and "Kyoto Protocol" claptrappery was simply
cooked up by the anti - US Chicken Little Claque...do a little investigation
of your own and you'll quickly find the *extremely* shaky scientific biases
that led to the "Kyoto Protocol"...it is PHONY "science". Even the rabid
supporters of this travesty of a "treaty" admit it really won't have much of
an impact on the Big Scale Of Things climatologically...

The "Kyoto Protocol" would have forced the US to cut back on energy
consumption by approximately ONE - THIRD over roughly a TEN - YEAR period -
all this for a fraction of a percentage point reduction in emissions.. Can
we say "economic devastation"? *Sure* we can...

Sorry, I don't want to see my country plunged into a bleak Depression so as
to massage the do - gooder egos of a bunch of UN/Third World/European
Socialist/Tree Hugger meddling a - holes...

The world has been warming and the sea levels have been rising since the end
of the last Ice Age 15, 000 years ago and this will continue for the next
few thousand years - or until another Ice Age begins. Nothing we can do
about it, Old Mudder Nature is a FAR stronger force than us puny human
pissants. The most logical thing to do is to eventually relocate human
habitations away from endangered coastal areas, e.g. New Orleans and the
Miississippi Delta (although the Delta's problems are also a result of
reduction of silt deposits because of the damming of the entire length of
the Mississippi).

And a parting thought: you might consider why global warming must may be a
*good* thing...

--
Best
Greg

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"KPP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.

This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Fish. It was the fish that were driving.

Quoted message said:

Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not

the

Quoted message said:

global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Indeed - some recent studies are claiming that solar output has been higher
this past millennium than it has for quite some time before.

If I find the link I'll post it.

Shaun aRe

"modom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So you disagree with this:

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_050731_hurricanes_stronger.html

Quoted message said:

And you disagree with this:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

Disagree with which part of those? Both clearly label the findings they
present as tentative, and the first also shows that there is no agreement
within the scientific community regarding the proposal in question.

For that matter, the question here is not really whether or not global
warming is occurring, but rather to what degree controllable human
activity is responsible for it and to what degree it could be reversed
by controls on those actions.

Bob M.

<day [email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 24 Sep 2005 10:16:51 -0700, "KPP"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

garbage snipped

You can find thousands of pages on this stuff online by typing junk
science Kyoto.

A good place to start is www.junkscience.com and
www.iiap.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/paleoclimate/paleo
_lecture_new.html

The Kyoto blatherings were a farce. Countries that should of been
listed (China, India) were excempt and would not have been affected by
it no matter who else signed on to it just to be politicaly correct.

The idea that man causes global warming by using fossile fuel is bunk.
The idea that the US causes global warming(and that was the goal of
Kyoto) has been proven to be junk science. Computers show that less
than 3% of the air pollution in the US is carried past our borders.

Since February 2005, $90 trillion dollars in production has been lost
to achieve a maybe non temperature increase of .000940013 degree C by
2050.
In the US alone, $5 billion dollars a year are being spent global
warming research and alternative energy research.

No country can sustain a low estimated $120 billion dollar a year hit
to their economy to achieve a high estimated .02 degree C temperature
savings by 2050 to fully comply with Kyoto. That would be about a
$5,400 billion dollar hit on their economies.

To achieve a global Kyoto compliance, it is estimated that half the
worlds GDP output would have to end by 2050. What countries do we
sacrifice?

Poleo climate charts show the polar areas were from 3 to 8 degrees C
warmer 125-130 thousand years ago than they are today. Pollution
rates/temperature rise per 100 years were 5 times what they are today
prior to the industrial revolution also.

I don't see g/warming as the problem, what is, is the (majority of the)
world's VAST dependence on non-renewable resources, that we are almost out
of stock of. BRING BACK HEMP CROPS WORLDWIDE AND SOLVE ALL OUR ENERGY
PROBLEMS AND KILL 50+% OF BOREDOM AT THE SAME TIME! Ahem...

Shaun aRe