On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:







On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon
dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually
putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming --
that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more
CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

* *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into
the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

* *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as
sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

* *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the
atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first
stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more.

* *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active
volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and
have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass.

* *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable
fraction of that mass.

* *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas.
And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release
of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The
dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom,
not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen
about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in
a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus.

* *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the
increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have
raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2
sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of
the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the
decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an
unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average
temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age.

* *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the
atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present
greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse
gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been
more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen
was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the
atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced
by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why?

* *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it.

* *It is a political convenience that this global climatic
catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.
And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this
movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to
debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in
approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used
energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has
increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of
magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral
obligation to curtail our own energy usage.

* *Sound familiar?

* *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr
Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's
considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his
neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming
evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve.

* *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since
1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest
in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year
according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the
US Government: 1934.

* *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one
constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic
reality is: change.

* *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also
periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star),
confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles.

* *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and
predictable patterns. And all of natural cause.

* *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How
long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the
myth crashes around the proponents' ears.

* *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global
climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the
world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages
at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some
of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no
longer because of the cooling climate.

* *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the
acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon
miles of them.

* *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate.

* *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a
pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates
have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries.

* *Look it up.

* *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding
your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent
with your preferences.

* *Which raises the REAL question.....

* *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it?

* *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter, I've looked it up. As a weather scientist I studied it.
You're incorrect. Period.

Bruce

On Apr 4, 9:02*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:





On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon
dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually
putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming --
that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more
CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

* *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into
the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

* *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as
sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

* *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the
atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first
stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more.

* *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active
volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and
have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass.

* *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable
fraction of that mass.

* *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas.
And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release
of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The
dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom,
not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen
about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in
a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus.

* *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the
increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have
raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2
sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of
the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the
decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an
unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average
temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age.

* *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the
atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present
greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse
gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been
more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen
was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the
atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced
by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why?

* *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it.

* *It is a political convenience that this global climatic
catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.
And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this
movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to
debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in
approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used
energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has
increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of
magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral
obligation to curtail our own energy usage.

* *Sound familiar?

* *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr
Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's
considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his
neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming
evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve.

* *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since
1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest
in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year
according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the
US Government: 1934.

* *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one
constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic
reality is: change.

* *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also
periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star),
confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles.

* *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and
predictable patterns. And all of natural cause.

* *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How
long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the
myth crashes around the proponents' ears.

* *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global
climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the
world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages
at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some
of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no
longer because of the cooling climate.

* *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the
acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon
miles of them.

* *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate.

* *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a
pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates
have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries.

* *Look it up.

* *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding
your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent
with your preferences.

* *Which raises the REAL question.....

* *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it?

* *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter, I've looked it up. *As a weather scientist I studied it.
You're incorrect. *Period.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here - try this on for size. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

For starters. The evidence is abundant from one REAL scientific
source after another that humans pump out orders of magnitude more GHG
than volcanoes, even big ones.

Bruce Jensen

On Apr 4, 9:06*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:02*am, bpnjensen wrote:





On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon
dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually
putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming --
that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more
CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

* *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into
the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

* *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as
sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

* *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the
atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first
stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more.

* *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active
volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and
have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass.

* *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable
fraction of that mass.

* *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas.
And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release
of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The
dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom,
not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen
about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in
a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus.

* *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the
increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have
raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2
sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of
the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the
decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an
unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average
temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age.

* *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the
atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present
greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse
gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been
more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen
was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the
atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced
by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why?

* *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it.

* *It is a political convenience that this global climatic
catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.
And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this
movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to
debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in
approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used
energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has
increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of
magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral
obligation to curtail our own energy usage.

* *Sound familiar?

* *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr
Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's
considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his
neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming
evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve.

* *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since
1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest
in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year
according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the
US Government: 1934.

* *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one
constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic
reality is: change.

* *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also
periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star),
confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles.

* *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and
predictable patterns. And all of natural cause.

* *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How
long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the
myth crashes around the proponents' ears.

* *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global
climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the
world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages
at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some
of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no
longer because of the cooling climate.

* *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the
acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon
miles of them.

* *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate.

* *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a
pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates
have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries.

* *Look it up.

* *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding
your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent
with your preferences.

* *Which raises the REAL question.....

* *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it?

* *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter, I've looked it up. *As a weather scientist I studied it.
You're incorrect. *Period.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here - try this on for size. *http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

For starters. *The evidence is abundant from one REAL scientific
source after another that humans pump out orders of magnitude more GHG
than volcanoes, even big ones.

Bruce Jensen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here is something else that everyone should read. GHG studies and
greenhouse warming concerns are not a Johnny-come-lately issue, nor
are they near the beginning of a series of questionable experiments.
The science has been studied to death for a century and half, and the
vectors of virtually every experiment and investigation performed on
this topic point toward human-induced global temperature increase and
climatological disruption. The predictions of the models are coming
true, accounting fully for every known natural and artificial source
of climate change agents.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#survey

Bruce

On Apr 4, 2:50*am, RHF wrote:
On Apr 3, 4:04*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:





On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from *wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming -- that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount of
CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

No Since China ans Soon India will be Surpassing
the USA Europe and Japan in GHG / CO2 Pollution :
They Too Should Be Required to Stop / Not Start [.]
IT IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM : NOT A USA ONLY PROBLEM

First : Regressive Wealth Transfer Taxes are Not the Answer !
* NOT BY EXCESSIVE ENERGY USE TAXES
THAT'S WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-SOCIALISM}
-say-no-no-no-to-more-obama-taxes-taxes-taxes-

Second : Cleaner Energy and More Efficient Energy
Use is the Answer : Not Cap-and-Trade
* NOT BY CUTTING REDUCING ENERGY USE
THAT'S ENERGY REDISTRIBUTION ! {ECO-FASCISM}
-say-yes-yes-yes-to-more-cleaner-and better-energy-
*.
.
China The Biggest Contributor To Global Warming !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...3cdd909d9aca38
*.
Damn Damn Damn, Wondering If... ?
It's Global Warming a/o Cooling ! -or-just-a-myth-http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2dc57e40acfa220b
*.
'Special-Dave' -proclaims- 7 Out of 10 Americans are
Misinformed About Current Eventshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/cf725874f92724c4
JfK have 'you' ever considered that 'you' are
One-of-the-those-Seven ?

-all-things-are-possible- ~ RHF
=hey='i'=might=be=too=
*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Warpity warp warp warp.

On Apr 4, 3:18*am, dxAce wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon
dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually
putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming --
that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more
CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

* *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into
the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

* *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as
sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

* *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the
atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first
stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more.

* *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active
volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and
have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass.

* *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable
fraction of that mass.

* *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas.
And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release
of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The
dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom,
not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen
about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in
a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus.

* *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the
increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have
raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2
sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of
the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the
decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an
unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average
temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age.

* *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the
atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present
greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse
gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been
more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen
was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the
atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced
by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why?

* *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it.

* *It is a political convenience that this global climatic
catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.
And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this
movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to
debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in
approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used
energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has
increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of
magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral
obligation to curtail our own energy usage.

* *Sound familiar?

* *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr
Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's
considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his
neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming
evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve.

* *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since
1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest
in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year
according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the
US Government: 1934.

* *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one
constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic
reality is: change.

* *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also
periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star),
confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles.

* *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and
predictable patterns. And all of natural cause.

* *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How
long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the
myth crashes around the proponents' ears.

* *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global
climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the
world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages
at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some
of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no
longer because of the cooling climate.

* *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the
acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon
miles of them.

* *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate.

* *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a
pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates
have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries.

* *Look it up.

* *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding
your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent
with your preferences.

* *Which raises the REAL question.....

* *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it?

* *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.

I'm looking forward to his, and others, fantasy response!

dxAce
Michigan
USA- Hide quoted text -

When you have the slightest ****ing idea what you're talking about,
get back to us.

bpnjensen wrote:

On Apr 4, 3:18 am, dxAce wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon
dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually
putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming --
that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more
CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into
the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as
sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the
atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first
stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more.

Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active
volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and
have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass.

Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable
fraction of that mass.

In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas.
And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release
of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The
dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom,
not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen
about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in
a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus.

Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the
increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have
raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2
sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of
the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the
decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an
unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average
temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age.

But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the
atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present
greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse
gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been
more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen
was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the
atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced
by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why?

Conveniently, because governments can't tax it.

It is a political convenience that this global climatic
catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.
And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this
movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to
debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in
approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used
energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has
increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of
magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral
obligation to curtail our own energy usage.

Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr
Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's
considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his
neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming
evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve.

Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since
1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest
in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year
according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the
US Government: 1934.

Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one
constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic
reality is: change.

Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also
periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star),
confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles.

The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and
predictable patterns. And all of natural cause.

The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How
long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the
myth crashes around the proponents' ears.

If you want to really know what the long term picture of global
climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the
world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages
at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some
of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no
longer because of the cooling climate.

Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the
acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon
miles of them.

But no more. Because of the cooling climate.

Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a
pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates
have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries.

Look it up.

Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding
your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent
with your preferences.

Which raises the REAL question.....

Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it?

Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.

I'm looking forward to his, and others, fantasy response!

dxAce
Michigan
USA- Hide quoted text -

When you have the slightest ****ing idea what you're talking about,
get back to us.

Man made global warming is a hoax. Personally, I don't care if you and others
fall for a hoax. Problem is with this hoax is that not only you believers in
the hoax are going to get fleeced, but those of us who do not are going to be
fleeced (via government taxes) as well.

On Apr 4, 12:12*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:06*am, bpnjensen wrote:





On Apr 4, 9:02*am, bpnjensen wrote:

On Apr 3, 6:28*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon
dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually
putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming --
that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more
CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

* *No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into
the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

* *One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as
sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

* *Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the
atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first
stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more.

* *Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active
volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and
have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass.

* *Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable
fraction of that mass.

* *In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas.
And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release
of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The
dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom,
not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen
about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in
a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus.

* *Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the
increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have
raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2
sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of
the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the
decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an
unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average
temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age.

* *But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the
atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present
greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse
gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been
more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen
was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the
atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced
by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why?

* *Conveniently, because governments can't tax it.

* *It is a political convenience that this global climatic
catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.
And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this
movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to
debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in
approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used
energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has
increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of
magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral
obligation to curtail our own energy usage.

* *Sound familiar?

* *Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr
Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's
considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his
neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming
evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve.

* *Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since
1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest
in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year
according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the
US Government: 1934.

* *Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one
constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic
reality is: change.

* *Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also
periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star),
confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles.

* *The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and
predictable patterns. And all of natural cause.

* *The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How
long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the
myth crashes around the proponents' ears.

* *If you want to really know what the long term picture of global
climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the
world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages
at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some
of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no
longer because of the cooling climate.

* *Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the
acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon
miles of them.

* *But no more. *Because of the cooling climate.

* *Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a
pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates
have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries.

* *Look it up.

* *Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding
your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent
with your preferences.

* *Which raises the REAL question.....

* *Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it?

* *Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter, I've looked it up. *As a weather scientist I studied it.
You're incorrect. *Period.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here - try this on for size. *http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

For starters. *The evidence is abundant from one REAL scientific
source after another that humans pump out orders of magnitude more GHG
than volcanoes, even big ones.

Bruce Jensen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here is something else that everyone should read. *GHG studies and
greenhouse warming concerns are not a Johnny-come-lately issue, nor
are they near the beginning of a series of questionable experiments.
The science has been studied to death for a century and half, and the
vectors of virtually every experiment and investigation performed on
this topic point toward human-induced global temperature increase and
climatological disruption. *The predictions of the models are coming
true, accounting fully for every known natural and artificial source
of climate change agents.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#survey

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Al Gore has friends in very high places , indeed . . .

I will respond to you only because you are so wrong on so many points
and with great reluctance (for reasons explained at the end of this
epistle).

Also, let me preface my comments by saying that I never said warming was
caused -solely- by man. Yes, there are natural cycles, but that is no
reason for us to add fuel to fire, so to speak.

On 4/3/2011 9:28 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into the
atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as sulphurous
oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

Bzzzzt! Wrong!

1) Check the references from several previous posters. Man has generated
a lot more CO2.

2) Look at the 50,000 year old ice samples containing carbon dioxide. At
the most modern (latest) end of the curve, it is almost exponential and
asymptotic. How odd that all that volcanic activity you talk about
occurred at the very latest end of the curve. A reasonable, intelligent
person would probably presume that volcanic activity occurred relatively
evenly distributed throughout the 50,000 year period of the ice core
samples.

In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas. And
when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release of CO2.

A *positive* feedback cycle. The warming caused by our putting CO2 in
the atmosphere makes it warmer, which then according to you, would cause
the oceans to release even more CO2.

And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The dramatic hockey
stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom, not a cause.

Yes indeed a "symptom", a symptom of all the CO2 we are dumping in the
atmosphere.

It is a political convenience that this global climatic catastrophe has
coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.

Your point is non-provable -- it is like arguing which came first, the
chicken or the egg. I contend the "eco-political activism" came about
because a problem was detected and scientists are concerned enough to
try and do something about it.

And very convenient
for those who can and will profit from this movement. I don't need to
mention any names, but he's refused to debate this issue, made hundreds
of millions of dollars dealing in approbations based on it, has sold
carbon credits to himself, used energy at 10 times the rate of his own
constituents, and has increased his own energy usage...

Bzzzt! Wrong again.

Not to mention any names either, "he" has REDUCED his energy usage by
installing solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal
heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact
fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could
have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building
Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable
design.

His improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11
percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed
by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30
percent more electricity during the same period.

Also, you are "conveniently" overlooking some other important facts.

1) "His" Nashville house is FOUR times the size of the average Nashville
house, so it would be reasonable to assume that it uses at least four
times the 'average' energy usage.

2) It is a DUAL purpose house, serving as an office for him, for his
wife and both of their staffs. It may be just a wee bit disingenuous of
you to compare a residential/*commercial* location to just a residential
location.

Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr Bush,
has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's considered
the state of the art.

First, you are comparing W's -newly built- house to one that was built
years ago. Again, a bit disingenuous of you to compare their energy
usage on an equal basis.

As you are clueless as to why I despise your hero, let me give you a
clue: I do not care in the least about W's electric bill. I DO loathe
him for *lying* us into -two- bogus wars, ****ing away a TRILLION
dollars of our national treasury, the deaths of 5000 of our children and
the horrible maiming and mutilation of thousands more of our children.
Heck of a job, Georgie! (and to anticipate any comments, I don't think
Obama should have gone into Libya).

Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since 1998.
And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest in the
20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year according
to scientific meteorological records, as released by the US Government:
1934.

Bzzzzt! Wrong yet again!

Per other posters (who quote Chapter and Verse), what you say is NOT true.

Finally, as to why I respond to you with great reluctance...

When your ex-wife first married you, she probably thought you were "Mr.
Right"; however, she may not have realized at the time that your first
name was "Always".

It's generally futile to deal with a person who thinks he is Always
Right and who has no qualms about blurring the line between
disingenuous and dishonest.

On 4/4/2011 4:09 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:

Don't forget one very important (carbon sequestration) vector that man
has most undeniably affected adversely: the forests. Massive
deforestation cannot help but effect not only nature's largest vector
for sequestration of atmospheric CO2, but also the production of O2.

Now you've touched on the one war I would support: a war against those
mowing down the rain forests.

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...ry+of+Volcanos

Volcanos Happen.They have been doing their thingy for many Millions of
Years.They will keep on Happening too.We can NOT Stop them!
cuhulin