Global Warming

[Tom Kunich]

So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
>
> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?

Over the short term, the only periodic fluctuations in sun activity that I'm
aware of involve sunspots, and that's what, a 7 or 14-year cycle? Too short
to be a contributing factor to a moderately long-term climate trend. For sun
"cooling" to be a factor, regarding global warming as currently discussed,
I'd think we'd be discussing cycles of maybe 50-500 years. Was that the
case?

Or was it even a "cycle" they were talking about? If it's just a gradual
cooling trend, how does that fit in with "normal cyclic variations?"

Have you discussed any of this with Andre Jute?

Thanks-

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

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 2, 3:06*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off..
> I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
>
> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?





Dumbass -


It hasn't cycled at this rate in at least 100,000 years (based upon
ice cores).

One of the wonderful things about this election is that the Global
Warming Deniers don't have a candidate who is as stupid as they are.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all plan on doing
something to reduce carbon emissions.

Bon apetit!


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[JS]

It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and unable
to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political inclinations
and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see the light'.

1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much IR
radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher levels in
the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past 800,000 yrs.
(about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical high of 270 ppm)

2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.

3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.

4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
smallest sizes ever.

5. The argument that H2O vapor is also a greenhouse gas doesn't mean that
CO2 doesn't have an effect. CO2 causes 10% of our greenhouse effect, and
climate models show pretty much the expected T change due to observed
increases in CO2. In fact, the latest news is that the climate models
under-predict T changes.

6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then the
atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the oceans,
which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating. A negative
feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening (which is very
real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.

Stop listening to "scientists" who are on the fringe and are capitalizing on
the issues of global warming because it has become such
a hot political debate!




"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
>
> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
> I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
>
> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/17/national/w123418D68.DTL

[Tom Kunich]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
>> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
>> again?
>>
>> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
> this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?

Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
with nature destroyed utterly.

[derFahrer@gmail.com]

On Apr 2, 7:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
> eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
> with nature destroyed utterly.

Duh. He was just creating hype for a re-run of "Soylent Green"

[Bill C]

On Apr 2, 7:35*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> >news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> >> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> >> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
> >> again?
>
> >> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> > Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
> > this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
>
> Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
> eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
> with nature destroyed utterly.

Time for him to write the ELF another check.

http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm

This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
perjury.
Bill C

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people
>> will be eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of
>> global warming with nature destroyed utterly.

derFahrer@gmail.com wrote:
> Duh. He was just creating hype for a re-run of "Soylent Green"

With Andouilette. Yummy.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:207f3611-0ddf-4e76-af95-d7593cbb0c15@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 7:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people
> > will be
> > eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global
> > warming
> > with nature destroyed utterly.
>
> Time for him to write the ELF another check.
>
> http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm
>
> This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
> perjury.

Just so there's no mistake - Turner really DID say that the world average
temperature would be 8 degrees hotter and people in the United States would
be eating each other in about 40 years. He also implied that we ought to
kill off a lot of people because it is the population density which is the
problem....

[Howard Kveck]

In article <207f3611-0ddf-4e76-af95-d7593cbb0c15@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Apr 2, 7:35*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >
> > > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> > >news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> > >> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> > >> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
> > >> again?
> >
> > >> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
> >
> > > Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
> > > this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
> >
> > Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
> > eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
> > with nature destroyed utterly.
>
> Time for him to write the ELF another check.
>
> http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm
>
> This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
> perjury.

Where is Ted ****ing Turner's name in that, Bill??????????? How about MoveOn?
Because I MUST HAVE ****ING MISSED IT.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Apr 2, 5:17*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:35*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> > >news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> > >> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> > >> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
> > >> again?
>
> > >> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> > > Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
> > > this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
>
> > Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
> > eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
> > with nature destroyed utterly.
>
> Time for him to write the ELF another check.
>
> http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm
>
> This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
> perjury.

Dude,

I don't know what Howard did to get under your
skin, and frankly, I don't care. You can have your
beef, but stop dragging it into every on and off topic
thread. Posting some random stuff from some
think tank hack about how ELF, ALF, Mork and Mindy
bombed a McDonalds has nothing to do with
Ted Turner or global warming. And continually
assigning opinions to other people (Howard in
this case) is similar to the Kunichian "So you think
that ..." mode of argument. Hang people by quoting
their own words, not those of others.

Ben

p.s. Let's have a moment of silence for Pam Dawber,
the first Earthling to be offered up as a sacrifice to the
gruesome, horrifying alien creature known as
"Robin Williams."

[Donald Munro]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Where is Ted ****ing Turner's name in that, Bill??????????? How about
> MoveOn?
> Because I MUST HAVE ****ING MISSED IT.

Oy lets get this thread back on topic - we're supposed to be a global
warming group and if we start going off on a tangent the TOM9000 series
is going to have a segmentation fault trying to interpret the input.

According to the TOM9000 logic Asher should have responded with a
repudiation of the pseudo science in the link in the bots attempted troll.

[Bill C]

On Apr 2, 10:38*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <207f3611-0ddf-4e76-af95-d7593cbb0...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> *Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 7:35*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > > > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> > > >news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> > > >> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> > > >> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
> > > >> again?
>
> > > >> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> > > > Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
> > > > this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
>
> > > Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
> > > eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
> > > with nature destroyed utterly.
>
> > Time for him to write the ELF another check.
>
> >http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm
>
> > This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
> > perjury.
>
> * *Where is Ted ****ing Turner's name in that, Bill??????????? How about MoveOn?
> Because I MUST HAVE ****ING MISSED IT.
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * Whatever happened to
> * * * * * * * * * * * * Leon Trotsky?
> * * * * * * * * * * * * He got an icepick
> * * * * * * * * * * * * That made his ears burn.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You ****ING MISSED IT!!!!!!
extracted:
An organization called the Ruckus Society was started by another Earth
First! co-founder named Mike Roselle. This group was largely
responsible for the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle, which ended in
mass rioting and the destruction of Starbucks and McDonald's
restaurants. The Ruckus Society trains young activists in the
techniques of "monkeywrenching" which, when applied, result in
property crimes of enormous financial cost.

The Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network (another outfit
founded by Mr. Roselle) are tax-exempt organization that have enjoyed
contributions from such mainstream sources as Ted Turner and Ben &
Jerry's. When will this breeding ground for environmental criminals be
held accountable?

Ruckus, by the way, also gets funding from a San Francisco outfit
called the Tides Foundation, which distributes other foundations'
money while shielding the identity of the actual donors. Our tax law
permits this sort of money-laundering. If the public is prevented from
learning where a tax-exempt organization like the Ruckus Society gets
their money, then the legal loopholes that permit foundations like
Tides to operate as it does should be closed.



Further extracted:

The Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network (another outfit
founded by Mr. Roselle) are tax-exempt organization that have enjoyed
contributions from such mainstream sources as Ted Turner and Ben &
Jerry's.

Other citations:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/13/3813/
http://www.activistcash.com/aboutUs.cfm

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=wreaking_ruckus
Quoted:

its directors became stars of a sort, and its funding (previously from
staid foundations like the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Human Rights
and individual sponsors like Ted Turner) improved dramatically.

There was an idiot defending Cheney on one of the military boards
usingfg the argument that he bears NO responsibility for the Iraq war.
The reasoning was that ONLY the president has the legal authority to
make that decision so Cheney and the rest of the Neo-cons were NOT
responsible.
That's the same as trying to discuss politics with Howard, or Rove.
Yes I finally did get in the first ride other than running errands
in about 6 months. Tuesday, after getting the stitches out of my knee
the Thursday before. More torn cartilage, arthritis cleanup, a couple
of bone spurs to grind away in this one. I did our clubs first TT of
the season series. A roaring 10 miles into a 10 mph headwind in 42
minutes and 6 seconds. WhoooHooo.. Four percocets and a Soma in two
hours and I was still miserable, and pretty crippled afterward, but
it's a ****ing start....again. DFL as usual but at least I'm out there
again.
Bill C

[ST]

On 4/2/08 7:38 PM, in article
YOURhoward-AA0D35.19383302042008@newsgroups.comcast.net, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> In article
> <207f3611-0ddf-4e76-af95-d7593cbb0c15@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 7:35*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
>>>> news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>>>>> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
>>>>> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
>>>>> again?
>>>
>>>>> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>>>
>>>> Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
>>>> this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
>>>
>>> Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
>>> eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
>>> with nature destroyed utterly.
>>
>> Time for him to write the ELF another check.
>>
>> http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm
>>
>> This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
>> perjury.
>
> Where is Ted ****ing Turner's name in that, Bill??????????? How about
> MoveOn?
> Because I MUST HAVE ****ING MISSED IT.


What a ****in moron..........

http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm

" An organization called the Ruckus Society was started by another Earth
First! co-founder named Mike Roselle. This group was largely responsible for
the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle, which ended in mass rioting and the
destruction of Starbucks and McDonald's restaurants. The Ruckus Society
trains young activists in the techniques of "monkeywrenching" which, when
applied, result in property crimes of enormous financial cost.

The Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network (another outfit founded
by Mr. Roselle) are tax-exempt organization that have enjoyed contributions
from such mainstream sources as Ted Turner and Ben & Jerry's. When will this
breeding ground for environmental criminals be held accountable?"

[Tom Kunich]

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:ab982595-04e9-4633-a9a2-d476b72d6aa7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> And continually
> assigning opinions to other people (Howard in
> this case) is similar to the Kunichian "So you think
> that ..." mode of argument. Hang people by quoting
> their own words, not those of others.

What's funny about this is the practice of little cowards such as yourself
to not actually say what you mean. Then complain when someone asks you if
you really meant what you almost said.

[Bill C]

On Apr 3, 12:45 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Apr 2, 5:17 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 7:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > > > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> > > >news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> > > >> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> > > >> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
> > > >> again?
>
> > > >> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> > > > Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
> > > > this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
>
> > > Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
> > > eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
> > > with nature destroyed utterly.
>
> > Time for him to write the ELF another check.
>
> >http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm
>
> > This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
> > perjury.
>
> Dude,
>
> I don't know what Howard did to get under your
> skin, and frankly, I don't care. You can have your
> beef, but stop dragging it into every on and off topic
> thread. Posting some random stuff from some
> think tank hack about how ELF, ALF, Mork and Mindy
> bombed a McDonalds has nothing to do with
> Ted Turner or global warming. And continually
> assigning opinions to other people (Howard in
> this case) is similar to the Kunichian "So you think
> that ..." mode of argument. Hang people by quoting
> their own words, not those of others.
>
> Ben
>
> p.s. Let's have a moment of silence for Pam Dawber,
> the first Earthling to be offered up as a sacrifice to the
> gruesome, horrifying alien creature known as
> "Robin Williams."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ben did you read the piece? It's right there in plain laguage. I
throw it in when it's relevant. In this case it's Mainstream leftist
folks providing support and funding for environmental terrorist
nutcases.
The ***** with Howard is that he flat out denies ANY of this ever
happens, or when confronted with evidence claims it's only a few
nutcases. It's not, unless you consider some of the left's biggest
most influential donors and spokespeople to be nutcases, and
insignificant.
How is it that not relevant?
This whole issue is way to important to be anything but brutally
open, honest, and up front about. Protecting, and funding extremists,
discredits the groups that are doing it. It's bad enough we've got a
bunch on scumbags appointed, and committed to mining and drilling our
public lands here, but when environmental groups, and their supporters
tie themselves to the violent nutjobs it damages all of us.
It let's Tom, and others point to the nutcases and deny everything
they say. Case closed in their minds.
You can't EVER reach a decent understanding, or solution without
hearing ALL the points and connections on an issue, no matter how
ugly, or offensive.


What are the facts? Again and again and again--what are the facts? Shun
wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never
mind the unguessable "verdict of history"; what are the facts, and to
how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your single clue. Get the facts!


Robert Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
Source: Time Enough for Love, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

He was also big on civility, and we KNOW I think Tom fails that
miserably, but so do others towards him. I'd much prefer not to read
any of it.
Bill C

[Bob Schwartz]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> p.s. Let's have a moment of silence for Pam Dawber,
> the first Earthling to be offered up as a sacrifice to the
> gruesome, horrifying alien creature known as
> "Robin Williams."

Lord have mercy. First it was RicodJour's reference to
Susan Dey and now this. It's only a matter of time until
someone with a boot fetish brings up the original Star
Trek. Maybe it'll be Hoovis, he seems to be on a roll
with that sort of thing.

Bob Schwartz

[Bill C]

On Apr 3, 11:07*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:45 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 5:17 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 7:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:WpUIj.6126$qT6.2244@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > > > > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> > > > >> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> > > > >> off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
> > > > >> again?
>
> > > > >> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> > > > > Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
> > > > > this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
>
> > > > Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be
> > > > eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming
> > > > with nature destroyed utterly.
>
> > > Time for him to write the ELF another check.
>
> > >http://www.cdfe.org/berman.htm
>
> > > This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
> > > perjury.
>
> > Dude,
>
> > I don't know what Howard did to get under your
> > skin, and frankly, I don't care. *You can have your
> > beef, but stop dragging it into every on and off topic
> > thread. *Posting some random stuff from some
> > think tank hack about how ELF, ALF, Mork and Mindy
> > bombed a McDonalds has nothing to do with
> > Ted Turner or global warming. *And continually
> > assigning opinions to other people (Howard in
> > this case) is similar to the Kunichian "So you think
> > that ..." mode of argument. *Hang people by quoting
> > their own words, not those of others.
>
> > Ben
>
> > p.s. Let's have a moment of silence for Pam Dawber,
> > the first Earthling to be offered up as a sacrifice to the
> > gruesome, horrifying alien creature known as
> > "Robin Williams."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ben did you read the piece? It's right there in plain laguage. *I
> throw it in when it's relevant. In this case it's Mainstream leftist
> folks providing support and funding for environmental terrorist
> nutcases.
> *The ***** with Howard is that he flat out denies ANY of this ever
> happens, or when confronted with evidence claims it's only a few
> nutcases. It's not, unless you consider some of the left's biggest
> most influential donors and spokespeople to be nutcases, and
> insignificant.
> *How is it that not relevant?
> *This whole issue is way to important to be anything but brutally
> open, honest, and up front about. Protecting, and funding extremists,
> discredits the groups that are doing it.

I meant to include being funded, and/or puppet fronts for energy/oil
companies here too.
They are just as bad in a different way.

>
> What are the facts? Again and again and again--what are the facts? Shun
> wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
> foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never
> mind the unguessable "verdict of history"; what are the facts, and to
> how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
>
> Robert Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
> Source: Time Enough for Love, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> He was also big on civility, and we KNOW I think Tom fails that
> miserably, but so do others towards him. I'd much prefer not to read
> any of it.
> *Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If anyone gives a **** this is one of the groups I belong to, and
would highly recommend:
http://www.trcp.org/

and one of their affilliated groups:

http://www.unionsportsmen.org/

Bill C

[Bill C]

On Apr 3, 11:07 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> What are the facts? Again and again and again--what are the facts? Shun
> wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
> foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never
> mind the unguessable "verdict of history"; what are the facts, and to
> how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
>
> Robert Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
> Source: Time Enough for Love, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> He was also big on civility, and we KNOW I think Tom fails that
> miserably, but so do others towards him. I'd much prefer not to read
> any of it.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is too good. I have to give credit to Air Ameerica for the
suspension.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-suspended-for-calling-clinton-ferraro-fg-whores/
Quoted:

Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag. Who knew?" Rhodes
said to laughter. "What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is, she's such a
f*****g whore."

A few minutes later, Rhodes said"Hillary is a big f*****g whore too."
She then suggested Clinton was trying to force her way into the
Democratic nomination by manipulating pledged delegates. "Oh, f**k
you, okay, f**k you," she said.

Ferraro said Rhodes should be fired.

Noone at Air America would EVER say these kind of things, only Coulter
and Malkin. Now have we setlled it that BOTH sides have their
scumbags?? I just wish that some of the outlets had taken the action
of suspending Coulter. In that case Air America has much more
credibility than Fox and friends.
Bill C
I can't believe, and I'm probably the only one, that I let myself get
sucked in by this **** again. I'm about as sick of this as everyone
else is.

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922

[RicodJour]

On Apr 3, 12:16 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > p.s. Let's have a moment of silence for Pam Dawber,
> > the first Earthling to be offered up as a sacrifice to the
> > gruesome, horrifying alien creature known as
> > "Robin Williams."
>
> Lord have mercy. First it was RicodJour's reference to
> Susan Dey and now this. It's only a matter of time until
> someone with a boot fetish brings up the original Star
> Trek. Maybe it'll be Hoovis, he seems to be on a roll
> with that sort of thing.

I take umbrage with that remark! Susan Dey was _way_ hotter than Pam
Dawber. The only thing that Pam Dawber had going for her was the
willingness to sleep with someone/thing who looks like Robin Williams
- which instills hope in those of us...errr...you less fortunate.

R

[Bob Schwartz]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:16 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>> p.s. Let's have a moment of silence for Pam Dawber,
>>> the first Earthling to be offered up as a sacrifice to the
>>> gruesome, horrifying alien creature known as
>>> "Robin Williams."
>> Lord have mercy. First it was RicodJour's reference to
>> Susan Dey and now this. It's only a matter of time until
>> someone with a boot fetish brings up the original Star
>> Trek. Maybe it'll be Hoovis, he seems to be on a roll
>> with that sort of thing.
>
> I take umbrage with that remark! Susan Dey was _way_ hotter than Pam
> Dawber. The only thing that Pam Dawber had going for her was the
> willingness to sleep with someone/thing who looks like Robin Williams
> - which instills hope in those of us...errr...you less fortunate.

Dude,

Yeah, Susan Dey was hot. Too bad Laurie Partridge and
Marcia Brady never served on the Enterprise.

Bob Schwartz

[Donald Munro]

RicodJour wrote:
>> I take umbrage with that remark! Susan Dey was _way_ hotter than Pam
>> Dawber. The only thing that Pam Dawber had going for her was the
>> willingness to sleep with someone/thing who looks like Robin Williams -
>> which instills hope in those of us...errr...you less fortunate.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Yeah, Susan Dey was hot. Too bad Laurie Partridge and Marcia Brady never
> served on the Enterprise.

Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ? You could easily
have got assimilated by her breasts if you weren't careful.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Donald Munro wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>>> I take umbrage with that remark! Susan Dey was _way_ hotter than Pam
>>> Dawber. The only thing that Pam Dawber had going for her was the
>>> willingness to sleep with someone/thing who looks like Robin Williams -
>>> which instills hope in those of us...errr...you less fortunate.
>
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> Yeah, Susan Dey was hot. Too bad Laurie Partridge and Marcia Brady never
>> served on the Enterprise.
>
> Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ? You could easily
> have got assimilated by her breasts if you weren't careful.
>


The one that was married to that Senator from Illinois? No, not Obama....

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ?

Don't act like you don't know. Yes, you even watched Voyager.

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Apr 3, 12:33 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ? You could easily
> have got assimilated by her breasts if you weren't careful.

Ah, yes. I believe her name was "Two-of-Large."

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 3, 2:33*pm, Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid>
wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ?
>
> Don't act like you don't know. Yes, you even watched Voyager.

She has had sex at least once:

http://www.celebritywonder.com/picture/Jeri_Ryan/ActressJeriR_Granitz_15200788.jpg

http://blog.synthesis.net/2008/03/05/jeri-ryan-from-borg-to-milf-in-9-months/

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:33 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ? You could easily
>> have got assimilated by her breasts if you weren't careful.
>
> Ah, yes. I believe her name was "Two-of-Large."


Oh no--don't take the brain-boost!

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Bill C]

On Apr 3, 5:44*pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 12:33 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ? You could easily
> >> have got assimilated by her breasts if you weren't careful.
>
> > Ah, yes. I believe her name was "Two-of-Large."
>
> Oh no--don't take the brain-boost!
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001

This IS performance enhancing, or maybe intimidating:
http://www.fhmonline.com/girls_girls_of_fhm_article.asp?idx_id=2566

Here's a little "popular" science too:
http://www.fhmonline.com/articles-1276.asp

Bill C

[Bob Schwartz]

Bill C wrote:
> I can't believe, and I'm probably the only one, that I let myself get
> sucked in by this **** again. I'm about as sick of this as everyone
> else is.

A long time ago I concluded that you had a need for
this sort of thing and that's why you are unable to
walk away from it.

For some of us it is the tweaks of Partridge Family
fantasies from adolescence that keeps us here. For
others it is arguing on the internet. What I don't
get are the Mork and Mindy groupies. That's just
not right.

Bob Schwartz

[Bill C]

On Apr 3, 6:10*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > *I can't believe, and I'm probably the only one, that I let myself get
> > sucked in by this **** again. I'm about as sick of this as everyone
> > else is.
>
> A long time ago I concluded that you had a need for
> this sort of thing and that's why you are unable to
> walk away from it.
>
> For some of us it is the tweaks of Partridge Family
> fantasies from adolescence that keeps us here. For
> others it is arguing on the internet. What I don't
> get are the Mork and Mindy groupies. That's just
> not right.
>
> Bob Schwartz

I don't know I could get sucked in by this:
http://www.hanacoast.ws/femalestars/pam_dawber/
The leotard shot aint too shabby ;-)

Couldn't find any on a bicycle, but I'd love to get sucked into this:
http://www.teamdarkside.ca/gallery.php?pic=17
we're talking lust here:
http://www.jassystems.com/ipsc/sbt%20pics/index.htm

Enjoy!
Bill C

[William Asher]

Bill C wrote:

> On Apr 3, 5:44*pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Apr 3, 12:33 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Which one was that half borg with the big breasts ? You could easily
>> >> have got assimilated by her breasts if you weren't careful.
>>
>> > Ah, yes. I believe her name was "Two-of-Large."
>>
>> Oh no--don't take the brain-boost!
>>
>> --
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001
>
> This IS performance enhancing, or maybe intimidating:
> http://www.fhmonline.com/girls_girls_of_fhm_article.asp?idx_id=2566
>
> Here's a little "popular" science too:
> http://www.fhmonline.com/articles-1276.asp
>
> Bill C
>

This has been the best usenet climate change thread ever.

--
Bill Asher

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Apr 3, 5:19 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This has been the best usenet climate change thread ever.

Please don't say that your globes were warming.

[Bill C]

On Apr 3, 8:19*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> This has been the best usenet climate change thread ever. *
>
> --
> Bill Asher- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Bill
Some more possibly incredibly good news here:
http://tinyurl.com/5rt9h9
quoted:
$1 per gallon biofuel touted
Wednesday, April 09, 2008By STAN FREEMANsfreeman@repub.com
AMHERST - Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst have
made a potential breakthrough in the development of "green gasoline,"
a biofuel that could cost as little as $1 a gallon.

Using a revolutionary process that rapidly heats, then cools wood,
grass or other plants to extract hydrocarbons, George W. Huber, an
assistant professor of chemical engineering, and a team of graduate
students were able to produce a liquid identical to gasoline in a
single-step process that took under a minute.

"We've proven this method on a small scale in the lab," Huber said.
"But we need to make further improvements and prove it on a large
scale before it's going to be economically viable."

Then there's the flip side:
http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=4985903

River at risk

BY RICHIE DAVIS RECORDER STAFF
Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008

AMHERST -- Climate change will reduce the availability of water in the
Connecticut River in summer and increase sediment and pollution loads,
according to a University of Massachusetts researcher.


This would be a disaster for me personally anyway as the river and
it's surroundings are up there with bicycles in my world, and the new
house is right near the river, and on a pond that used to be part of
the river.
Bill C

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/crgw.htm
http://www.ctriver.org/
http://www.portlandriversidemarina.com/river_raft_links/

[William Asher]

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote in news:d6bd4ec9-7e0c-4643-b7ce-
13d1246e59b6@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 3, 5:19 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This has been the best usenet climate change thread ever.
>
> Please don't say that your globes were warming.
>

If they are, and I'm not saying they are, it would be in a discreet manly
kind of way. Anyway, I prefer to think of it as my globes being forced
radiatively. Maybe that's not any better.

--
Bill Asher

Interesting climate article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/pdf/452531a.pdf

Discussion of the article:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080402/pdf/452508a.pdf

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Apr 3, 10:27 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/pdf/452531a.pdf
>
> Discussion of the article:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080402/pdf/452508a.pdf

Top five terms that make you think climate scientists are, um, a tad
frustrated:

5. Forcings
4. Global warming
3. Pielke
2. La Nina
1. O-zone

[William Asher]

wrote:

> On Apr 3, 10:27 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/pdf/452531a.pdf
>>
>> Discussion of the article:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080402/pdf/452508a.pdf
>
> Top five terms that make you think climate scientists are, um, a tad
> frustrated:
>
> 5. Forcings
> 4. Global warming
> 3. Pielke
> 2. La Nina
> 1. O-zone
>

Top five terms demonstrating they are perverts:

5. Decadal oscillation
4. Deep convection
3. Thermohaline circulation
2. Polar amplification
1. Deep ice core

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Bill C wrote:

> On Apr 3, 8:19*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This has been the best usenet climate change thread ever. *
>>
>> --
>> Bill Asher- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey Bill
> Some more possibly incredibly good news here:
> http://tinyurl.com/5rt9h9
> quoted:
> $1 per gallon biofuel touted
> Wednesday, April 09, 2008By STAN FREEMANsfreeman@repub.com
> AMHERST - Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst have
> made a potential breakthrough in the development of "green gasoline,"
> a biofuel that could cost as little as $1 a gallon.
>
> Using a revolutionary process that rapidly heats, then cools wood,
> grass or other plants to extract hydrocarbons, George W. Huber, an
> assistant professor of chemical engineering, and a team of graduate
> students were able to produce a liquid identical to gasoline in a
> single-step process that took under a minute.
>
> "We've proven this method on a small scale in the lab," Huber said.
> "But we need to make further improvements and prove it on a large
> scale before it's going to be economically viable."
>
> Then there's the flip side:
> http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=4985903
>
> River at risk
>
> BY RICHIE DAVIS RECORDER STAFF
> Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008
>
> AMHERST -- Climate change will reduce the availability of water in the
> Connecticut River in summer and increase sediment and pollution loads,
> according to a University of Massachusetts researcher.
>
>
> This would be a disaster for me personally anyway as the river and
> it's surroundings are up there with bicycles in my world, and the new
> house is right near the river, and on a pond that used to be part of
> the river.
> Bill C
>
> http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/crgw.htm
> http://www.ctriver.org/
> http://www.portlandriversidemarina.com/river_raft_links/

Interesting story on the biofuel. However, I think it is odd though that
we put so much effort into finding ways to continue on with lifestyles that
are inherently unsustainable.

I think decreased water in the Connecticut River is going to be the least
of your worries in 15 years. But then I am a Casandrist at heart, mainly
because it goes so well with being a misanthropic secular nihilist.

--
Bill Asher

[Bill C]

On Apr 10, 4:12*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 8:19*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> This has been the best usenet climate change thread ever. *
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Asher- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hey Bill
> > *Some more possibly incredibly good news here:
> >http://tinyurl.com/5rt9h9
> > quoted:
> > $1 per gallon biofuel touted
> > Wednesday, April 09, 2008By STAN FREEMANsfree...@repub.com
> > AMHERST - Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst have
> > made a potential breakthrough in the development of "green gasoline,"
> > a biofuel that could cost as little as $1 a gallon.
>
> > Using a revolutionary process that rapidly heats, then cools wood,
> > grass or other plants to extract hydrocarbons, George W. Huber, an
> > assistant professor of chemical engineering, and a team of graduate
> > students were able to produce a liquid identical to gasoline in a
> > single-step process that took under a minute.
>
> > "We've proven this method on a small scale in the lab," Huber said.
> > "But we need to make further improvements and prove it on a large
> > scale before it's going to be economically viable."
>
> > Then there's the flip side:
> >http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=4985903
>
> > River at risk
>
> > *BY RICHIE DAVIS RECORDER STAFF
> > Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008
>
> > AMHERST -- Climate change will reduce the availability of water in the
> > Connecticut River in summer and increase sediment and pollution loads,
> > according to a University of Massachusetts researcher.
>
> > This would be a disaster for me personally anyway as the river and
> > it's surroundings are up there with bicycles in my world, and the new
> > house is right near the river, and on a pond that used to be part of
> > the river.
> > *Bill C
>
> >http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/crgw.htm
> >http://www.ctriver.org/
> > *http://www.portlandriversidemarina.com/river_raft_links/
>
> Interesting story on the biofuel. *However, I think it is odd though that
> we put so much effort into finding ways to continue on with lifestyles that
> are inherently unsustainable. *
>
> I think decreased water in the Connecticut River is going to be the least
> of your worries in 15 years. *But then I am a Casandrist at heart, mainly
> because it goes so well with being a misanthropic secular nihilist. *
>
> --
> Bill Asher- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You've got to read Florence King's books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_King
Love her!
Bill C

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Apr 10, 1:12*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> >http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=4985903
>
> > River at risk
>
> > *BY RICHIE DAVIS RECORDER STAFF
> > Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008
>
> > AMHERST -- Climate change will reduce the availability of water in the
> > Connecticut River in summer and increase sediment and pollution loads,
> > according to a University of Massachusetts researcher.
>
> > This would be a disaster for me personally anyway as the river and
> > it's surroundings are up there with bicycles in my world, and the new
> > house is right near the river, and on a pond that used to be part of
> > the river.
> > *Bill C
>
> >http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/crgw.htm
> >http://www.ctriver.org/
> > *http://www.portlandriversidemarina.com/river_raft_links/
>
> Interesting story on the biofuel. *However, I think it is odd though that
> we put so much effort into finding ways to continue on with lifestyles that
> are inherently unsustainable. *
>
> I think decreased water in the Connecticut River is going to be the least
> of your worries in 15 years. *But then I am a Casandrist at heart, mainly
> because it goes so well with being a misanthropic secular nihilist. *

Well, the bad news is that increased heavy rainfall in
the Northeast may flood Bill's house. The good news
is that we'll all be able to maintain our unsustainable
lifestyles a bit longer by damming the river (hey, his house
is already flooded, so who cares if it's submerged?) and
shipping water and power here to Arizona, where we'll
be dying of thirst and lack of power to run our A/C units,
except for the fact that we'll have persuaded the Feds to
let us steal Massachusetts's water. States' rights has
a funny way of going out the window sometimes, and
in 15 years, we may have more electoral votes, so the
outcome is fore-ordained.

Ben
Forget SUVs, what we need is to ban
golf courses in Scottsdale.

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:880f75bc-2ed7-403b-9b82-64b3fedbfe68@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> > off.
> > I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
> >
> > Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> It hasn't cycled at this rate in at least 100,000 years (based upon
> ice cores).

By all means tell us everything you know about ice cores.

> One of the wonderful things about this election is that the Global
> Warming Deniers don't have a candidate who is as stupid as they are.

Not nearly as stupid as someone who is willing to believe that the earth
isn't stable.

[Jack Hollis]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all plan on doing
>something to reduce carbon emissions.

And just exactly what would that be? Presidents don't make laws,
Congress does.

Any international treaty must be approved by the Senate. When the
Senate got wind that Clinton wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty it passed
a resolution condemning the treaty 95-0. Clinton, sent Al Gore to
sign the treaty, which he did, but Clinton never sent it to the Senate
for ratification.

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 2, 3:06*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
>> I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
>>
>> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
>
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>It hasn't cycled at this rate in at least 100,000 years (based upon
>ice cores).


Read it again: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

The conditions described for 1922 are much more severe (or mild) than anything
even the most fanatic global warmists have recently claimed.

Of course there's climate change. There has never been anything else.

[Kyle Legate]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
>> I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
>>
>> Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
^
|
Agreed. The sun has no link to climate change:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

[RicodJour]

On Apr 10, 5:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
> > > off.
> > > I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
>
> > > Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
>
> > It hasn't cycled at this rate in at least 100,000 years (based upon
> > ice cores).
>
> By all means tell us everything you know about ice cores.
>
> > One of the wonderful things about this election is that the Global
> > Warming Deniers don't have a candidate who is as stupid as they are.
>
> Not nearly as stupid as someone who is willing to believe that the earth
> isn't stable.

Look who's commenting on stability. Thanks, I needed a chuckle!

R

[Bob Schwartz]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Not nearly as stupid as someone who is willing to believe that the earth
>> isn't stable.
>
> Look who's commenting on stability. Thanks, I needed a chuckle!

Dumbass,

He hasn't core dumped in years. What you're taking as instability
is a design feature.

Bob Schwartz

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 10, 5:02*pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all plan on doing
> >something to reduce carbon emissions.
>
> And just exactly what would that be? *Presidents don't make laws,
> Congress does. *
>
> Any international treaty must be approved by the Senate. *When the
> Senate got wind that Clinton wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty it passed
> a resolution condemning the treaty 95-0. *Clinton, sent Al Gore to
> sign the treaty, which he did, but Clinton never sent it to the Senate
> for ratification.



Dumbass -


It's a decade later. The Democrats will control Congress. The balance
of public opinion has swung the other way because of the relentless
amount of scientific evidence that supports the theory.

The three remaining presidential candidates have the same opinion on
that issue for a reason.

You've got no horse in the race buddy. Get used to it.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:10:12 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 10, 5:02*pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
>>
>> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all plan on doing
>> >something to reduce carbon emissions.
>>
>> And just exactly what would that be? *Presidents don't make laws,
>> Congress does. *
>>
>> Any international treaty must be approved by the Senate. *When the
>> Senate got wind that Clinton wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty it passed
>> a resolution condemning the treaty 95-0. *Clinton, sent Al Gore to
>> sign the treaty, which he did, but Clinton never sent it to the Senate
>> for ratification.
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>It's a decade later. The Democrats will control Congress. The balance
>of public opinion has swung the other way because of the relentless
>amount of scientific evidence that supports the theory.

It's a decade later and worldwide carbon emissions have increased by 18%. Among
parties to Kyoto they have increased by 21%. US carbon emissions have increased
only 6% now shut the **** up.

>The three remaining presidential candidates have the same opinion on
>that issue for a reason.

Yes, they are politicians seeking power and this is an excuse to claim more of
it while enriching their friends.

>You've got no horse in the race buddy. Get used to it.

Been up against stupid fads before and swatted 'em down before. Nothing new.

Dumbass

[Jack Hollis]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:10:12 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The Democrats will control Congress.

Not until they have 60 votes they can count on.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <yuzLj.4337$GO4.1487@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:

> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 5:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Not nearly as stupid as someone who is willing to believe that the earth
> >> isn't stable.
> >
> > Look who's commenting on stability. Thanks, I needed a chuckle!
>
> Dumbass,
>
> He hasn't core dumped in years.

Oh dear. http://tinyurl.com/5tpxv6

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Donald Munro]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> He hasn't core dumped in years.

**** OR GET OFF THE POT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tom Kunich]

<Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message
news:52otv31ajstmheukvft0etgtg365dm384v@4ax.com...
>
> Been up against stupid fads before and swatted 'em down before. Nothing
> new.

What is really surprising is the age of the extremist Liberals here. You'd
think that 50 years of massive disappointment from their leaders might have
clued them in, but no.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 10, 8:55*pm, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:

>
> >You've got no horse in the race buddy. Get used to it.
>
> Been up against stupid fads before and swatted 'em down before. Nothing new.



Dumbass -


You and which presidential candidate?

Obama? Clinton? McCain?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[William Asher]

Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote in
news:52otv31ajstmheukvft0etgtg365dm384v@4ax.com:

>
> It's a decade later and worldwide carbon emissions have increased by
> 18%. Among parties to Kyoto they have increased by 21%. US carbon
> emissions have increased only 6% now shut the **** up.
>

Hard to see only a 6% increase for CO2 in plots like this:

http://images.wri.org/chart_us_eu_emissions_90_04.gif

(details here: http://tinyurl.com/4smcp5)

and this:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw464.gif

No matter how you slice it, the US is more than holding up its share of
the increase in total CO2 emissions. You might be thinking of greenhouse
gas intensity, which was the Bush Administration's way of making you feel
better about yourself when in fact there was no reason you should.

Remember, I'm here to help.

--
Bill Asher

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7D1046ECD41FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> Remember, I'm here to help.

So what do you drive again?

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 11, 1:35*am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No matter how you slice it, the US is more than holding up its share of
> the increase in total CO2 emissions.

I'm really glad environmentalists made sure coal and natural gas
plants were built instead of nukes.* I am really glad the guvmint
built all those roads for people to drive on.

> You might be thinking of greenhouse
> gas intensity, which was the Bush Administration's way of making you feel
> better about yourself when in fact there was no reason you should.

I know less of what the Bush admin says about greenhouse gases and
global warming than what you say. But I sorta like warm wet places.

> Remember, I'm here to help.

Yeah, but you are unsustainable.

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A7D1046ECD41FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> Remember, I'm here to help.
>
> So what do you drive again?

You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

--
Bill Asher

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 11, 6:52*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A7D1046ECD41FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
>
>
> > Remember, I'm here to help.
>
> So what do you drive again?



Dumbass -


You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
wind energy and all that.

If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
American companies and American workers. The oil?

Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.

Ideology. It doesn't make sense.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Apr 11, 9:54 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:

> > So what do you drive again?
>
> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

Hmmm. Sounds like a potential challenge.

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> So what do you drive again?

William Asher wrote:
> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

That's because he's a hybrid human.

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7D64C687E02FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A7D1046ECD41FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> Remember, I'm here to help.
>>
>> So what do you drive again?
>
> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

Afraid to tell us what you drive? Now that's a real surprise.

[William Asher]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
> wind energy and all that.
>
> If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
> more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
> American companies and American workers. The oil?
>
> Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
> Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
> extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.
>
> Ideology. It doesn't make sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PY7N4iRgLQ

--
Bill Asher

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:06595ff9-5f9e-4ac2-a775-8098a0a8c675@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 11, 6:52 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
> wind energy and all that.

The real comedy is that you're so slow that no one here can slow their minds
enough to comprehend what you're thinking. My brother used to work for
Windpower, I've worked on alternative energy resources for companies in a
commercial sense and as far back as 1974 I was having these same arguments
in newspaper editorials that Solar and Wind wouldn't become practical until
the AVAILABILITY of oil started becoming a problem. And gee, I was right and
all those big-mouthed fools such a yourself were wrong. Yet again.

> If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
> more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
> American companies and American workers. The oil?

Do you even understand what the hell you're talking about?

> Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
> Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
> extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.

What happens to those places when the oil runs out?

Here's a hint to jackasses such as yourself - let's run THEM out of oil
before we use up all of our own.

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:04:33 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 11, 6:52*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9A7D1046ECD41FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Remember, I'm here to help.
>>
>> So what do you drive again?
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
>wind energy and all that.

I'm not anti-any-damn-thing other than most government subsidies, but that's
just general politics, not just this case. I'm all for the research programs.

Do those windmills no longer have piles of dead birds under them, or is that
okay now.

>If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
>more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
>American companies and American workers. The oil?
>
>Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
>Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
>extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.
>
>Ideology. It doesn't make sense.

And neither will the Saudis once we start working the deposits we have here.

[William Asher]

wrote:

> On Apr 11, 9:54 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> > So what do you drive again?
>>
>> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.
>
> Hmmm. Sounds like a potential challenge.
>
>

I prefer "virtual challenge." It's more in keeping with accepted standards
for record keeping in bicycle racing palmares.

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Donald Munro wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> So what do you drive again?
>
> William Asher wrote:
>> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.
>
> That's because he's a hybrid human.
>

I am very relieved you didn't ask me if I drove Tom hard and put him away
wet. We've had enough of that sort of humor and I want to be the first not
to resort to base jokes like that. I don't believe in holding others to a
standard that I myself won't follow.

My initial response was that I drove a Lemond a lot but it was starting to
whine and squeal so I was thinking of replacing it and did he have any
recommendations. That seemed contentious though, and not likely to lead to
a thread where I could use a variant of the phrase "rode hard and put away
wet," which for some reason has been a meme floating stuck in my head
lately. The idea being that if I use the word "rode" sometimes, I can at
least believe I am not totally off-topic.

A post like this deserves an awful pun: Does Tom use hybrid fool cells?

--
Bill Asher

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

William Asher wrote:

> >> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.
>
> > Hmmm. Sounds like a potential challenge.
>
> I prefer "virtual challenge." It's more in keeping with accepted standards
> for record keeping in bicycle racing palmares.

I think I might be able to show that I get better mileage than you --
i.e., I've driven him crazier with fewer posts.

[Bill C]

On Apr 11, 3:38*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A7D64C687E02FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9A7D1046ECD41FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> >>> Remember, I'm here to help.
>
> >> So what do you drive again?
>
> > You crazy mostly. *I get great mileage.
>
> Afraid to tell us what you drive? Now that's a real surprise.

Obviously Bill's ashen, and the fool cell powered velocipede he rides
is made of quaking aspen, which can be put away, without damage, after
riding in a rain storm.
Bill C

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A7D64C687E02FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A7D1046ECD41FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>>
>>>> Remember, I'm here to help.
>>>
>>> So what do you drive again?
>>
>> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.
>
> Afraid to tell us what you drive? Now that's a real surprise.
>

If you have a comment on the increase in CO2 emissions from the U.S. I'ld
love to hear it. But while equating being willing to discuss personal
transportation with courage is keeping within your programming, it is so
ludicrously infantile I just can't bring myself to respond seriously. I
know people claim that all you need to know you learn in kindergarten, but
you don't have to keep acting like you're still there. Or at least in some
bizarro-world cross between the Marine Corps and kindergarten. Were you a
Marine? I forget.

--
Bill Asher

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 11, 12:43*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:06595ff9-5f9e-4ac2-a775-8098a0a8c675@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 6:52 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
> > wind energy and all that.
>
> The real comedy is that you're so slow that no one here can slow their minds
> enough to comprehend what you're thinking. My brother used to work for
> Windpower, I've worked on alternative energy resources for companies in a
> commercial sense and as far back as 1974 I was having these same arguments
> in newspaper editorials that Solar and Wind wouldn't become practical until
> the AVAILABILITY of oil started becoming a problem. And gee, I was right and
> all those big-mouthed fools such a yourself were wrong. Yet again.
>
> > If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
> > more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
> > American companies and American workers. The oil?
>
> Do you even understand what the hell you're talking about?
>
> > Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
> > Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
> > extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.
>
> What happens to those places when the oil runs out?



Dumbass -


When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
to go, right?

Well . . .


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[RicodJour]

On Apr 11, 3:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
> > Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
> > extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.
>
> What happens to those places when the oil runs out?

They become another Dubai.

> Here's a hint to jackasses such as yourself - let's run THEM out of oil
> before we use up all of our own.

Yeah, that's a swift idea. Let's throw huge amounts of money at them
until they get sick of it. Sheesh.

R

[Tom Kunich]

"JS" <mcgyver66REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftohhc$efm$1@aioe.org...
> It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and
> unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political
> inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see the
> light'.

Not nearly as sad as seeing people with no knowledge of how the world around
them operates being led around by the nose by people with an agenda.

> 1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much
> IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher levels
> in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past 800,000
> yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical high of 270
> ppm)

As I pointed out before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that maxes out in the
neighborhood of 200 ppm. But by all means try to believe that somehow it
behaves differently than science has shown it does.

> 2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.

We most certainly have to be concerned about increasing levels of CO2. The
problem is that man is only the tiniest portion of that increase and the
other 97% is natural.

> 3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
> rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.

The leftists have been quoting CO2 levels from tests performed on bubbles
obtained from ice in glaciers. It has since been shown that the CO2 in these
bubbles IS NOT stable and CO2 slowly filters out of the bubbles into and
through the surrounding ice and that the _supposed_ level of 280 ppm was
completely wrong and suspected to vary around the same neighborhood it is
today.

> 4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
> smallest sizes ever.

Yet strangely after they spent all that time decrying how those glaciers in
Austria had been there for millions of years, as they melted away there were
HOUSES and VILLAGES under them. Funny thing about stupid people - they tend
to believe anything someone they believe to be an authority tells them.

> 6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
> understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then
> the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the
> oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating. A
> negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening
> (which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.

Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f60fab2d-435e-4e9b-a5b9-8a69f2603f1b@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
> to go, right?

If you don't understand what's going on in the energy business why don't you
actually go out and find out rather than listening to morons on the left?

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 11, 12:43*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:06595ff9-5f9e-4ac2-a775-8098a0a8c675@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 11, 6:52 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
>> > wind energy and all that.
>>
>> The real comedy is that you're so slow that no one here can slow their minds
>> enough to comprehend what you're thinking. My brother used to work for
>> Windpower, I've worked on alternative energy resources for companies in a
>> commercial sense and as far back as 1974 I was having these same arguments
>> in newspaper editorials that Solar and Wind wouldn't become practical until
>> the AVAILABILITY of oil started becoming a problem. And gee, I was right and
>> all those big-mouthed fools such a yourself were wrong. Yet again.
>>
>> > If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
>> > more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
>> > American companies and American workers. The oil?
>>
>> Do you even understand what the hell you're talking about?
>>
>> > Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
>> > Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
>> > extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.
>>
>> What happens to those places when the oil runs out?
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
>to go, right?
>
>Well . . .

Bakken Formation.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 11, 2:22*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f60fab2d-435e-4e9b-a5b9-8a69f2603f1b@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
> > to go, right?
>
> If you don't understand what's going on in the energy business why don't you
> actually go out and find out rather than listening to morons on the left?




Dumbass -


When all else fails, the ad hominem is inevitable.

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

The supply/demand equation has gotten out of whack. The policy should
be to wean ourselves from the Saudis/Iraqis/Iranians/Venezuelans.

It's doable. The United States is capable of being the most innovative
culture on the face of the planet if the leadership is there.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[JS]

>Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
>segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

Maxed out already??????? Please enlighten me as to how you've come to that
conclusion.

Actually I do know how CO2 warming works and unfortunately you haven't a
clue and you continue to argue with your narrow-minded, finger-pointing and
branding me a "leftist". Whether I am or not is not the issue here.

FYI: The reason CO2 affects T is because it can absorb IR (I'm assuming
that's what you meant by a "VERY" small segment of the light band). And it
does so, because the wavelength of IR is about the right value to interact
with the O-C-O bonds. A carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms in a
linear array, with C in the middle. When IR radiation hits the CO2 molecule,
the C atoms move back and forth, vibrating back to something that is more
linear. That's how CO2 traps heat.

The experiments showing the heat absorbing effect of CO2 go back to the 19th
century, when John Tyndall, in attempting to explain the ice ages, examined
the "heat blocking" effect of certain gases. He discovered that CO2, water
vapor and methane were all very effective at blocking (absorbing) heat.
This is what I was trying to point out regarding the feedback effects when
CO2 values become elevated in the atmosphere.


"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:K-ydndbnSM4HRWLanZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> "JS" <mcgyver66REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftohhc$efm$1@aioe.org...
>> It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and
>> unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political
>> inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see
>> the light'.
>
> Not nearly as sad as seeing people with no knowledge of how the world
> around them operates being led around by the nose by people with an
> agenda.
>
>> 1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much
>> IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher
>> levels in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past
>> 800,000 yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical
>> high of 270 ppm)
>
> As I pointed out before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that maxes out in the
> neighborhood of 200 ppm. But by all means try to believe that somehow it
> behaves differently than science has shown it does.

>
>> 2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.
>
> We most certainly have to be concerned about increasing levels of CO2. The
> problem is that man is only the tiniest portion of that increase and the
> other 97% is natural.
>
>> 3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
>> rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.
>
> The leftists have been quoting CO2 levels from tests performed on bubbles
> obtained from ice in glaciers. It has since been shown that the CO2 in
> these bubbles IS NOT stable and CO2 slowly filters out of the bubbles into
> and through the surrounding ice and that the _supposed_ level of 280 ppm
> was completely wrong and suspected to vary around the same neighborhood it
> is today.
>
>> 4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
>> smallest sizes ever.
>
> Yet strangely after they spent all that time decrying how those glaciers
> in Austria had been there for millions of years, as they melted away there
> were HOUSES and VILLAGES under them. Funny thing about stupid people -
> they tend to believe anything someone they believe to be an authority
> tells them.
>
>> 6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
>> understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then
>> the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the
>> oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating.
>> A negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening
>> (which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.
>
> Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
> segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.
>
>

[William Asher]

wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>
>> >> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.
>>
>> > Hmmm. Sounds like a potential challenge.
>>
>> I prefer "virtual challenge." It's more in keeping with accepted
>> standards for record keeping in bicycle racing palmares.
>
> I think I might be able to show that I get better mileage than you --
> i.e., I've driven him crazier with fewer posts.
>

Ahhh.

Sensei, I was not trying to compete with you. I humbly apologize for
bragging.

Off to wax car, paint fence, sand deck.

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

JS wrote:

<snip>

What you say is true, but the reason that CO2 has an impact on
longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere in the presence of so much
water vapor is that the mixing ratio of water vapor isn't constant through
the troposphere whereas CO2 is uniformly mixed. Go to:

www.realclimate.org

search for "saturated gassy argument" for the gory details. Tom won't read
the article, but you should.

--
Bill Asher

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Apr 11, 2:53*pm, "JS" <mcgyver66REM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
> >segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.
>
> Maxed out already??????? Please enlighten me as to how you've come to that
> conclusion.
>

Kunich learned everything there is to know about
radiative transfer back when he was designing
spectrochromatographs.

We've already explained to him several times that
CO2 absorption is not saturated because much of
it is in the upper atmosphere at low temp and
pressure:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2525f31aa16bd1c1
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/ec9f3be18c9e5323
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/a61d0a94249ab1e0

However, Kunich's programmer informs me that
upper management is more willing to fund work
on the invective module than the new-evidence-
and-argument module, so we'll be stuck with this
old argument at least until after the 2009 TdF.

Ben

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 11, 3:31 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Off to wax car, paint fence, sand deck.

Tom Sawyer would be able to get someone else to paint the fence.

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
> Off to wax car

A good idea if its wet a lot.

[JS]

Great article...Thanks.

John

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7D9EDF62625FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> JS wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> What you say is true, but the reason that CO2 has an impact on
> longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere in the presence of so much
> water vapor is that the mixing ratio of water vapor isn't constant through
> the troposphere whereas CO2 is uniformly mixed. Go to:
>
> www.realclimate.org
>
> search for "saturated gassy argument" for the gory details. Tom won't
> read
> the article, but you should.
>
> --
> Bill Asher

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Apr 11, 10:07 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
> > Off to wax car
>
> A good idea if its wet a lot.

He's been riding it hard.

[Kyle Legate]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
> (like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
> through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
> Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
> instead of $100/barrel.
>
Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

[William Asher]

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote in news:a9e8717a-52d8-4b0b-afee-
4d2e5618845b@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 11, 10:07 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> William Asher wrote:
>> > Off to wax car
>>
>> A good idea if its wet a lot.
>
> He's been riding it hard.
>

Isn't the official rbr phrase: "pound it like there's no tomorrow"?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/df1a88c0c4067e01

--
Bill Asher

[ST]

On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article 66ds3bF2jvl75U1@mid.individual.net, "Kyle
Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>> If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
>> (like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
>> through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
>> Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
>> instead of $100/barrel.
>>
> Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
> sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy


What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....

Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot be
like France because???? Anyone??

Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on very
undependable wind power?!?!

[Tom Kunich]

"ST" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:C427FE3F.5208D%no@no.com...
> On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article 66ds3bF2jvl75U1@mid.individual.net, "Kyle
> Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>
>>> If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
>>> (like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
>>> through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
>>> Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
>>> instead of $100/barrel.
>>>
>> Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
>> sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy
>
> What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
> minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....

What's more they have a small population on an island with a large volcanic
nature. Absolutely nothing like conditions in the USA and only someone
without the capacity to think would have suggested such a comparison.

> Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot be
> like France because???? Anyone??

We could be like France. All we'd have to do is build a hundred nuclear
power plants and allow oil drilling anywhere within US territories.

> Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on
> very
> undependable wind power?!?!

I work in a state with the largest investment in alternate energy per capita
and the return on the dollar is tiny.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 13, 6:15*pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article 66ds3bF2jvl7...@mid.individual.net, "Kyle
>
> Legate" <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> >> If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
> >> (like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
> >> through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
> >> Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
> >> instead of $100/barrel.
>
> > Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
> > sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy
>
> What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? *Both extremely
> minimal compared to the USA. *Apples and oranges.....
>
> Closest example to prove your point??? *Probably France. And we cannot be
> like France because???? Anyone??
>
> Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on very
> undependable wind power?!?!



Fatso -


We'll be going more nuclear eventually. The carbon neutrality of
nuclear is starting to bring some environmental groups around. It's
not perfect, but it's better than coal and improved 21st century
reactors are engineered so that meltdowns are physically impossible.

As for wind, it is not dependable only on a moment to moment basis.
Overall it's a benefit since the amount of energy generated per year
is relatively constant. As the wind blows and extra wind generated
energy comes on the grid, dirtier sources can be modulated downward.

Almost anything is better than oil, unless one actually enjoys (or
profits from) the prospect of sending our soldiers to molder in
hostile foreign lands.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[sigvaldi]

On Apr 14, 1:15*am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article 66ds3bF2jvl7...@mid.individual.net, "Kyle
>
> Legate" <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> >> If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
> >> (like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
> >> through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
> >> Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
> >> instead of $100/barrel.
>
> >Icelandwould make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
> > sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy
>
> What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? *Both extremely
> minimal compared to the USA. *Apples and oranges.....

60% of the energy produced in Iceland go to industry and GDP per
capita is similar to the USA so it is not a case of apples and
oranges, all countries are comparable.

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:26:15 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>"ST" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:C427FE3F.5208D%no@no.com...
>> On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article 66ds3bF2jvl75U1@mid.individual.net, "Kyle
>> Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
>>>> (like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
>>>> through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
>>>> Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
>>>> instead of $100/barrel.
>>>>
>>> Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
>>> sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy
>>
>> What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
>> minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....
>
>What's more they have a small population on an island with a large volcanic
>nature. Absolutely nothing like conditions in the USA and only someone
>without the capacity to think would have suggested such a comparison.
>
>> Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot be
>> like France because???? Anyone??
>
>We could be like France. All we'd have to do is build a hundred nuclear
>power plants and allow oil drilling anywhere within US territories.
>
>> Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on
>> very
>> undependable wind power?!?!
>
>I work in a state with the largest investment in alternate energy per capita
>and the return on the dollar is tiny.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c824edbe-eeff-4ecb-843e-f65074cafc04@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> As for wind, it is not dependable only on a moment to moment basis.
> Overall it's a benefit since the amount of energy generated per year
> is relatively constant. As the wind blows and extra wind generated
> energy comes on the grid, dirtier sources can be modulated downward.

Now if we could only get you to understand something about climactic
patterns.

Here's a clue - weather changes. Not just day to day but year to year. Wind
is not a constant.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Apr 14, 6:23*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c824edbe-eeff-4ecb-843e-f65074cafc04@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > As for wind, it is not dependable only on a moment to moment basis.
> > Overall it's a benefit since the amount of energy generated per year
> > is relatively constant. As the wind blows and extra wind generated
> > energy comes on the grid, dirtier sources can be modulated downward.
>
> Now if we could only get you to understand something about climactic
> patterns.
>
> Here's a clue - weather changes. Not just day to day but year to year. Wind
> is not a constant.



Jackass -


Of course wind isn't constant, but you're wrong - output doesn't vary
much year to year. It's like temperature. It's not constant, but year
to year averages are in a very narrow range for any given locale. The
problem w/ wind isn't it's year to year variability (something that
doesn't exist and if you're gonna insist upon your nonexistent
strawman, you better have a cite, jackass), the problem is with how to
store wind energy when output is high and demand is low.

What do you propose that the world do when fossil fuels begin to get
used up? We're using 85 million barrels of oil/day right now. It may
not be "peak oil" - production may still increase, but eventually it's
g