Is it me, or is it really getting hot in here?

Dusty wrote:

" All the Kyoto "treaty" is, is another way for the third world
countries, like Germany, France and Canada, along with a host of other
smaller and poorer nations, to rob the citizens of the USA out of our
hard earned money. If it is in fact a man made problem then no treaty
that robs the USA will do a damned thing to solve the problem."

How do you rob a poor, blind man?
You let down the tyres on his SUV! :-)

Chris.B

I drive a Saturn. 40+ MPG. I would like to have what Arnold drive --
a humma!

is another way for the third world
countries, like Germany, France and Canada, along with a host of other
smaller and poorer nations, to rob the citizens of the USA out of
our

The other 95% of this planet's population you mean, (China alone
comprises 25%). Is the USA the only non third world country then ?
Come out of your insular shell, travel a bit (not with the armed
forces though) you'll see we're all just ordinary people trying to get
along.
jc


--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

I probably have more time standing at the crapper in aircraft traveling this
planet that you have in your dreams. Get a life, YOUR SIDE LOST -- GET OVER
IT!!!!!!!

Pure bull ****, the USA does not steal from other countries like France,
Germany and Canada does. We buy and sell things. We liberate people
instead of stealing from them like France, Germany and Canada does. GET
OVER IT --- WE BEAT BACK THE NAZIS, COMMIES, TERRORISTS while France,
Germany and Canada stole oil from the Iraqi people. WE SAVE FRANCE'S BUTT
TWICE!

So take your 95% and stick it right up your insular shell.


"John Carruthers" wrote in message
...
is another way for the third world
countries, like Germany, France and Canada, along with a host of other
smaller and poorer nations, to rob the citizens of the USA out of
our

The other 95% of this planet's population you mean, (China alone
comprises 25%). Is the USA the only non third world country then ?
Come out of your insular shell, travel a bit (not with the armed
forces though) you'll see we're all just ordinary people trying to get
along.
jc


--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

February 24, 2005

Tim Killian wrote:

"Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels

globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,

Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the
base
and making it more unstable."

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"My almanac says:

148,236,600 Area of the worlds oceans

840,000 Area of Greenland

From which I calculate

176 Ratio of the two

4,059 The thickness of ice cap necessary to raise the oceans by 23
feet.

But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland's ice
cap is
around 1,000 feet

Thus making the potential rise around 5 feet from a complete melt.

5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their
environmentalist comrades seriously when they are so obviously
distorting facts to suit their agenda?

Why should anyone take you seriously, when
you are incapable of the least verifacation :

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs133-99/gl_vol.html

****ing idiot.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Read this: http://newsmax.com/archives/articles...2/164822.shtml
you stupid idiot.

wrote:

Read this: http://newsmax.com/archives/articles...2/164822.shtml
you stupid idiot.

If the cap fits you should wear it. Another pack of dittohead lies and
half truths that have no place whatsoever on a science newsgroup.

The change in atmospheric CO2 concentration shows the isotopic signature
of ancient fossil fuels. There is no excuse for profligate waste and not
taking steps towards greater energy efficiency.

The world's scientists are much more united on the issue of GW than the
US domestic press would have you believe. The scientific evidence is
already strong enough to be convincing and getting stronger all the time.

Regards,
Martin Brown

February 24, 2005

wrote:

Read this:
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles...2/164822.shtml

Tripe.

I prefer to get science, from scientific journals,
you probably aren't familiar with those, they can
be found at your local world class university
research libraries, apparently you haven't attended.
But, just in case you want a taste of real science :

http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/papers/pdfs/197.pdf

A Milankovitch 413,000 year periodicity modulates
interglacial periods, thus the interglacial period
we are now in closely resembles the one which occured
roughly 420,000 years ago, it was 28,000 years long.

The glaciation that we expect in another 10 to 20
thousand years is definitely off. Actually, we
are headed for something that looks a lot like
the Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum, if
carbon dioxide levels keep rising the way they
are, we can expect sudden thermal inversion
of the oceans, complete melting of ice caps,
sudden releases of methane stored in hydrates,
and a 10 to 20 degree surface temperature rise,
over a period of the next 100 to 1000 years.

Of course, you wouldn't know about these things.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

The real issue here is not climate change. It's the call to arms
involving massive government action, and spending public wealth that
bothers many people outside of these environmental organizations. Some
of the fringe groups actually believe that humans can effect changes in
the Earth's climate.

Martin Brown wrote:
wrote:

Read this: http://newsmax.com/archives/articles...2/164822.shtml
you stupid idiot.


If the cap fits you should wear it. Another pack of dittohead lies and
half truths that have no place whatsoever on a science newsgroup.

The change in atmospheric CO2 concentration shows the isotopic signature
of ancient fossil fuels. There is no excuse for profligate waste and not
taking steps towards greater energy efficiency.

The world's scientists are much more united on the issue of GW than the
US domestic press would have you believe. The scientific evidence is
already strong enough to be convincing and getting stronger all the time.

Regards,
Martin Brown

February 24, 2005

Some of the fringe groups actually believe that humans
can effect changes in the Earth's climate.

Sure, like the NSF, NOAA, NASA, AGU, AMS, EPA, DOD, APS, IOP ...

Fringe groups all.

Thommas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net