On Jan 28, 1:07 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

From the link:
Thursday, January 24, 2008

Limbaugh, Geraghty & Global Warming [Roy Spencer]
redact:

At the risk of losing my tongue-in-cheek position as Rush Limbaugh's
"Official EIB Climatologist," I'm going to weigh in on his argument
against Jim Geraghty's view that the Republicans' chances in the next
presidential election are being hurt by those of us not willing to
give in to the scientific "consensus" on global warming.

Fossil fuels produce one molecule of carbon dioxide 500,000 molecules
of atmosphere, every year.

Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature
routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2 between the atmosphere and
the Earth's surface, every day.

[All sound scientific logic so far, then he decends in political
rhetoric.]

Once the government gains control over energy decisions, do we really
think they will relinquish it after manmade global warming is realized
to be a false alarm? It has been said that whoever controls energy,
controls life. Right now, the free market (which means you) controls
those decisions.

Do we need to remind ourselves how well things went in the former
Soviet Union when the bureaucrats made the economic decisions, rather
than letting the collective will of the people, expressed though a
free market, govern the economy?

[Or for that matter, do we need to ask where the price of fuel in
Britain comes from or the other disastrous effects wrought on us by
the free market due to Thatcherisam etc? Or exactly why MRSA is such a
problem in the average British hospital?]

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...jEyODJjZTM3Nzc

I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope ratios
demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional atmospheric
carbon dioxide.

You mean it is less radio-active?

Similarly equipped without armour for my opinion, I can only offer:
radio-active carbon is less likely to be accepted by vegetables than
the real thing. Which would indicate a build up of radioactive carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.

Except that the nitrogen is not normally found in combination with
oxygen and that the fallout of the fallout would serve to adsorb stray
ions... from...
errr...
Ahem!

The science was an intro to an eulogy for a Republican party shill.
And it seems to double as a machine for distancing the would be new
talking heads from the inept, old dictatorship.

Speaking of talking heads. Do they still insert weather-girls on
location -usually shown demonstrating a lack of foresight, on the
morning TV these days?