Road Cycling · Public discussion

The Writing is on the Wall

Started by Kurgan Gringioni · · Last activity · 156 posts · 3,061 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
26 February 2007
Last activity
9 March 2007
Original author
Kurgan Gringioni
Posts
156
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,061
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 156
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.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.

    Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona have agreed to
    develop a regional target for reducing greenhouse emissions in six
    months, according a statement from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

    During the next 18 months, the governors will devise a market-based
    program, such as a load-based cap and trade program to reach the
    target. The five states also have agreed to participate in a multi-
    state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their
    region.

    The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative comes on the heels of
    an agreement in the East called the Regional Greenhouse Gas
    Initiative.

    "With the Western states you've got a huge part of the U.S. economy
    that are beginning to regulate greenhouse gases," said Jeremiah
    Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research
    Group.

    California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently passed the country's
    toughest greenhouse emissions laws which aim to reduce the state's
    economy-wide output of the gases by 25 percent by 2020.

    Monday's agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap and trade
    program, which will provide a powerful framework for developing a
    national cap and trade program," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on
    Monday. "This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation
    addressing climate change."

    The other states in the Western pact have also passed greenhouse gas
    reduction initiatives of their own. The regional pact would allow the
    states to use market mechanisms more efficiently to reduce output of
    the gases, said Baumann.

    The United States initiated cap and trade programs on pollutants such
    as acid rain components in the early 1990s.

    In such markets for greenhouse gases, companies can offset their
    emissions by investing in clean projects like solar and wind power, or
    earn credits that they can sell for cutting their emissions at their
    factories.

    In 2005, the European Union formed a cap and trade program to meet its
    countries' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

    Unlike developed countries that ratified Kyoto, the United States does
    not regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. President
    George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first
    term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly leave rapidly
    developing countries without emissions limits in its first phase.

    Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and
    transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national
    greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann
    said.

    Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate
    imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from
    surrounding states outside of the agreement.

    The seven states in the Eastern regional pact, which include New York
    and Massachusetts, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants
    by 10 percent by 2019.

  2. "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.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.

    Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona have agreed to
    develop a regional target for reducing greenhouse emissions in six
    months, according a statement from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

    During the next 18 months, the governors will devise a market-based
    program, such as a load-based cap and trade program to reach the
    target. The five states also have agreed to participate in a multi-
    state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their
    region.

    The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative comes on the heels of
    an agreement in the East called the Regional Greenhouse Gas
    Initiative.

    "With the Western states you've got a huge part of the U.S. economy
    that are beginning to regulate greenhouse gases," said Jeremiah
    Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research
    Group.

    California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently passed the country's
    toughest greenhouse emissions laws which aim to reduce the state's
    economy-wide output of the gases by 25 percent by 2020.

    Monday's agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap and trade
    program, which will provide a powerful framework for developing a
    national cap and trade program," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on
    Monday. "This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation
    addressing climate change."

    The other states in the Western pact have also passed greenhouse gas
    reduction initiatives of their own. The regional pact would allow the
    states to use market mechanisms more efficiently to reduce output of
    the gases, said Baumann.

    The United States initiated cap and trade programs on pollutants such
    as acid rain components in the early 1990s.

    In such markets for greenhouse gases, companies can offset their
    emissions by investing in clean projects like solar and wind power, or
    earn credits that they can sell for cutting their emissions at their
    factories.

    In 2005, the European Union formed a cap and trade program to meet its
    countries' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

    Unlike developed countries that ratified Kyoto, the United States does
    not regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. President
    George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first
    term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly leave rapidly
    developing countries without emissions limits in its first phase.

    Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and
    transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national
    greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann
    said.

    Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate
    imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from
    surrounding states outside of the agreement.

    The seven states in the Eastern regional pact, which include New York
    and Massachusetts, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants
    by 10 percent by 2019.

    Ain't politics wonderful. Sooner or later these states will actually elect
    someone with an IQ above that of a parrot and then what? Will this elected
    official then actually read scientific papers and figure out that NO ONE is
    meeting the Kyoto protocols now and if they did it wouldn't make ANY
    difference whatsoever?

  3. Quoted message said:

    Ain't politics wonderful. Sooner or later these states will actually elect
    someone with an IQ above that of a parrot and then what? Will this elected
    official then actually read scientific papers and figure out that NO ONE
    is meeting the Kyoto protocols now and if they did it wouldn't make ANY
    difference whatsoever?

    Absolutely not true. Even if the measures currently in place (and, according
    to you, not being met) aren't enough to make a difference, they're at least
    introducing people to the idea that we may have to make some serious changes
    down the road.

    If it turns out that we can't stop or change what's happening, we are at
    least becoming more aware of what's going on, and will better be able to
    adapt as required. That's the worst-case scenario. The best situation would
    be learning what it might take to actually mitigate the climate changes.

    It is difficult to come up with a case that we're better off by burying our
    heads in the sand, even if it turns out in the end that we're powerless to
    prevent global warming.

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

  4. "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Ain't politics wonderful. Sooner or later these states will actually
    elect someone with an IQ above that of a parrot and then what? Will this
    elected official then actually read scientific papers and figure out that
    NO ONE is meeting the Kyoto protocols now and if they did it wouldn't
    make ANY difference whatsoever?

    Absolutely not true.

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

    The really weird thing about this is that the PAPERS that compose the data
    for IPCC almost all show that and yet the "executive summary" makes false
    and misleading claims. Now the latest IPCC report hasn't been released
    because they're CHANGING THE PAPERS TO REFLECT THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!

    CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker - there
    is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
    reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
    heating.

    The world is going nuts around us and I'd sure like to know why. We've
    always been told that if you want to know who is controlling everything
    follow the money - well - who is pouring money into the global warming
    nonsense?

    Here's the bottom line - we are in an interglacial period and we can expect
    climate variations like what we've been seeing. Studies on the previous 4
    interglacial periods demonstrate MORE heating than we've seen in this one.

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

  5. "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.html

    Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

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

    -snip-

    It is customary, and polite, to start the subject of off-topic postings
    with "OT:"

    -S-

  6. Quoted message said:

    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

  7. Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

    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.

  8. "Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.html

    Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

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

    -snip-

    It is customary, and polite, to start the subject of off-topic
    postings with "OT:"


    That's like asking someone who is up to their neck in outhouse effluent
    to pontificate about fragrance and redolence.

    Phil H

  9. "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    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. 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.

    Phil H

  10. "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Yeah, those people with actual access to the intelligence are so much more
    stupid than those of us who haven't.

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
    develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
    is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
    here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
    chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
    security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
    since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
    Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
    air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
    the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
    programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
    Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
    destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
    has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,
    CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
    programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
    continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
    continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
    licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
    the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe
    Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
    threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
    of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
    means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
    weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
    weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
    confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
    biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
    build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
    reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D,
    WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
    to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve
    that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
    and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
    to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
    next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
    the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
    significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
    chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
    refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
    Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
    stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
    given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
    .... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
    continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
    and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
    NY), Oct 10, 2002.

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
    Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
    the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham
    (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

    If there's one thing we can count on, it's that people who know the least
    about what's going on are likely to be the loudest about how everyone else
    should have known better.

  11. Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...>> Explain this - the Senate voted 97 to nothing AGAINST the Kyoto

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Protocols. What do you know that they didn't?

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    --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 ?

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

    Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

    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

  13. Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:... On Feb 26 said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    dumbass,

    Quoted message said:

    put your money where your mouth is.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

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

    Quoted message said:
    Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...>> Explain
    this - the Senate voted 97 to nothing AGAINST the Kyoto

    Quoted message said:

    > Protocols. What do you know that they didn't?

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    --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

  15. Quoted message said:

    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.php?article_id=367

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

    Quoted message said:
    Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...> On Feb

    26 said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    dumbass,

    Quoted message said:

    put your money where your mouth is.

    Quoted message said:

    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

  17. Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    news:[email hidden]...> On Feb
    26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > dumbass,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > put your money where your mouth is.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    dumbass,

    Quoted message said:

    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.

  18. Kurgan Gringioni said:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.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.

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

    Quoted message said:
    Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Feb 26, 11:38 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
    > <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    >news:[email hidden]...> On
    >Feb
    > 26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    > > dumbass,

    Quoted message said:

    > > put your money where your mouth is.

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    dumbass,

    Quoted message said:

    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

  20. "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

    http://tinyurl.com/37otds

    http://tinyurl.com/35whlq

    Don't noboday say "Duesberg."

    --
    Bill Asher

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.