jawod wrote:

SNIPPED

Everyone, from Ronald Reaqan to George Bush, knows that trees cause
pollution. We need to listen to our leaders. They know more than we do.

GW is a convenient lie. (Bush, that is)

Trees cause polution /??????? You're kidding, I hope!!

Trees are the solution to CO2 and global warming. Their process is: CO2 in, and
O2 out.

Now, fish life cause Methane; along with refried beans!

Now to replace the depleted Ozone layer we need more thunderstorms. Lightning
produces an 3O2 to 2O3 reaction. We should all have a Van DeGraff generator in
our back yards to contribute to the replenishment of the O3 layer.

Hydroplants that produce electricity add Nitrogen to the downstream H2O and
that's bad. So, we better shut down the Hydro plants. Fission facilities are
used to produce electricity but they produce long half life waste material. So,
we better shut down the fission facilities. The carbon [oil/coal/coke]
facilities produce SO2 and CO2 products. So, we better shut down the carbon
power plants. Without that power we can't turn on our computers. So, we can all
go back to talking on the real radio ... sorry, no electricty ... no radios. We
add a generator to ur bicycles and get in shape while we make electricity. Wait!
Wait! Wait! can't do that! Exercize increases CO2 gases when we exhale. Looks
like we have to stop exhaling!

If we can't exhale we better not inhale! And if we can't inhale who gives a damn
about trees and pollution!!

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:32:36 -0400, Dave wrote:

And if we can't inhale who gives a damn about trees and pollution!!
Try taking a breath with fewer trees and more pollution.

Richard Clark wrote:
Let's face it, the administration has abandoned the church's teachings
that we are the stewards of creation.

They have also abandoned the teachings of Jesus, like
"Turn the other cheek", "Do good to them who hate you",
and "Blessed are the meek".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Dave wrote:
jawod wrote:

SNIPPED

Everyone, from Ronald Reaqan to George Bush, knows that trees cause
pollution. We need to listen to our leaders. They know more than we do.

GW is a convenient lie. (Bush, that is)

Trees cause polution /??????? You're kidding, I hope!!

Trees are the solution to CO2 and global warming. Their process is: CO2 in, and
O2 out.

Sorry, some trees do cause pollution.

Some trees produce huge amounts of isoprene, notably oak.

Some trees produce nitrogen oxides, notably pine.

Every wonder why the Blue Hills of Kentucky and Blue Mountains in
Australia are that way? Hydrocarbon pollution from trees.

Google for it.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I want to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not
warming the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

No Republican, Democrat, or religion answers accepted. Just science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I don't understand. Are you claiming that the earth is NOT warming?

BTW, I, for one, do not agree with the argument that if GW is cyclic,
that human activity is not involved or is not important to it.

(I HOPE Cecil was kidding about the campfire theory of the last cycle.)

If the posters in this NG are really going to spend time refuting the
veracity of GW as a phenomenon, I'm pretty disappointed.

Antennas, anyone?

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message


My cousin is a Dairy Farmer in PA.
His cows produce more CO2 per hour
than three GMC Pickup trucks running
at idle for the same time period. Wonder how
Mr. Gore would address this problem?

Right after he invented the Internet, Al invented the
cow-talytic converter. It doesn't makes much money
but he's milking it for all it's worth. I have no beef
with him over that. He can skim the cream if he
needs to. He has no udder way to make a living.

No bull.

jawod wrote:
I want to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not

warming the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

No Republican, Democrat, or religion answers accepted. Just science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


I don't understand. Are you claiming that the earth is NOT warming?

Oh no, just the opposite.

My point is that when the CO2 percentage of the atmosphere goes up,
more heat is retained. If the increased retention of heat does not
increase the surface temperature of the earth, then something is
happening to keep that from happening.

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.



BTW, I, for one, do not agree with the argument that if GW is cyclic,
that human activity is not involved or is not important to it.

(I HOPE Cecil was kidding about the campfire theory of the last cycle.)

Sure as he believes that Al Gore said he invented the Internet....

If the posters in this NG are really going to spend time refuting the
veracity of GW as a phenomenon, I'm pretty disappointed.

It's party doctrine, they have to! ;^)



Antennas, anyone?

Okay, let us discuss the effects of global warming on the atmosphere,
and therefore on RF propagation?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:14:42 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
Okay, let us discuss the effects of global warming on the atmosphere,
and therefore on RF propagation?

Hi Mike,

That would then segue us into HAARP and the Global Warming of the
Ionosphere....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Mike Coslo wrote:
I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is
not political in nature.

May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?
no