"Bob Harrington" wrote in message
news:d2Hqb.98317$9E1.478311@attbi_s52...
Strider wrote:


How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the
problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about
it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming,
global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in.
What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot
agree upon.
Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on
personal
freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems that,
for all
they know, might make the situation worse.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable
facts.

Strider

Update. My data now indicates that Global Darkening may have
reached a
temporary plateau. I still urge all nations of the world to
immediately
release as much hydrogen and helium into the atmosphere as
possible to
help it become lighter again.

We have BS and swamp gas expressing methane that cause warming,
but so many of us have quit smoking that the planet is in
remission, somewhat. On the other hand, we reproduce rapidly
when socialism pays the bills, so a war is needed now and then to
reduce all these bio-heating elements going around at 98.6 f bb.

It's 10 PM here - I've collected enough data over the past 6 hours to
confirm that Global Darkening is a reality! We must become more
enlightened! =)

The same thing happens here... and it seems to get cold quicker too. I think
Global Darkening is a conspiracy brought about by the government at the
north pole.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:27:05 +0000, Strider wrote:

Political arguments cannot be mathematically or scientifically solved.
Cures to global warming are presented as scientific fact. They are
just a stab in the dark.

That's what the changes you're complaining about are - public
policy, or more recently, non-policy.


Finish the debate. Present the facts. Then we'll talk.

The facts are readily available, and far too many for me
to go into here. As I said the first time, you can take the time to
understand the argument or BS. You're doing the latter. And frankly,
if you just BS'd in a way that wasn't implying that anyone who
disagreed with you was a lying ******* who needs to stop sniffing
that glue then I wouldn't have even responded. I often avail
myself of the opportunity to be stupid, I just try to show a little
humility while I'm doing it. You might want to do the same.

Nova did a story not too long ago about measuring the
Antarctic ice cap. Take a look on the PBS website. That's a start,
at least. You can also do a Google search, or read books on biology,
physics, and climatology. All that boring stuff.

None of this is shown to be caused by humans. In fact, it can pretty
well be shown to have happened in the past, long before people could
have had a role.

You no doubt believe that smoking has never been proved to
cause cancer. The mechanisms for CO2 production and distribution in
the atmosphere are well understood. Some of them have human causes.
No natural process creates CFCs in any quantity worth mentioning.
These are works of man.

There have been wide variations in the earth's climate in
the past. There have been many different causes. This one, however,
is at least partly due to human actions. It can be at least minimized
by human actions as well.

Religion is about faithin something that cannot be proven. This is
exactly what the eco movement is about., faith is the unproven.

That there are people who take ecology as a religion is
unfortunate, but it doesn't mean there's not a problem. No more
than the existence of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson proves
there's no god.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:53:22 GMT, GuidoXVI
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:27:05 +0000, Strider wrote:

Political arguments cannot be mathematically or scientifically solved.
Cures to global warming are presented as scientific fact. They are
just a stab in the dark.

That's what the changes you're complaining about are - public
policy, or more recently, non-policy.

That is my point. There is not enough proven data to justify large
social changes. Political arguments are rarely, if ever about
anything more than political power. Therefore they cannot be proven
mathematically. Were there enough verifialbe facts ( A causes B and C
will most likely fix it) there would be little argument.


Finish the debate. Present the facts. Then we'll talk.

The facts are readily available, and far too many for me
to go into here. As I said the first time, you can take the time to
understand the argument or BS. You're doing the latter. And frankly,
if you just BS'd in a way that wasn't implying that anyone who
disagreed with you was a lying ******* who needs to stop sniffing
that glue then I wouldn't have even responded. I often avail
myself of the opportunity to be stupid, I just try to show a little
humility while I'm doing it. You might want to do the same.

What facts are available fairly well proves that the climate is
warming up, at least over the last 150 years. The reasons for this
warming are theory. Therefore, any fix might theoretically work. The
question, then, is will this fix do the job or will it make the
situation worse?

Excuse me but sniveling does seem to be a trait of the eco-nut.
Include your self or not in that illustrious herd, it's up to you.


Nova did a story not too long ago about measuring the
Antarctic ice cap. Take a look on the PBS website. That's a start,
at least. You can also do a Google search, or read books on biology,
physics, and climatology. All that boring stuff.

Nova just repeats the researcher's theories, presented as fact BTW,
and usually without bothering to let the viewer know that it's a
theror.

None of this is shown to be caused by humans. In fact, it can pretty
well be shown to have happened in the past, long before people could
have had a role.

You no doubt believe that smoking has never been proved to
cause cancer. The mechanisms for CO2 production and distribution in
the atmosphere are well understood. Some of them have human causes.
No natural process creates CFCs in any quantity worth mentioning.
These are works of man.

(Straw argument, cancer, noted)

Your assumption that the greenhouse theory of global warming is man
made. I'd give you this one except that global warming and cooling
have happened many, many times in the past quite without the help of
humanity. I don't think they quite have a handle on those reasons as
of yet.

There have been wide variations in the earth's climate in
the past. There have been many different causes. This one, however,
is at least partly due to human actions. It can be at least minimized
by human actions as well.

Religion is about faithin something that cannot be proven. This is
exactly what the eco movement is about., faith is the unproven.

That there are people who take ecology as a religion is
unfortunate, but it doesn't mean there's not a problem. No more
than the existence of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson proves
there's no god.

Our debate is not about the existance of a problem. We agee the
climate is getting warmer right now. the debate is about the validity
of the theories on the reason.

Strider

Strider wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:34:49 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

Strider wrote:


How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming, global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in. What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot agree
upon. Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on
personal freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems
that, for all they know, might make the situation worse.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable facts.

Strider

Update. My data now indicates that Global Darkening may have
reached a temporary plateau. I still urge all nations of the world
to immediately release as much hydrogen and helium into the
atmosphere as possible to help it become lighter again.


It seems like there is an excess of methane floating about.

Sorry about that. Ran out of Beano...

GuidoXVI wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:34:49 +0000, Bob Harrington wrote:

It's 10 PM here - I've collected enough data over the past 6 hours to
confirm that Global Darkening is a reality! We must become more
enlightened! =)

Collect data for another twelve hours or so, and I think a
new theory will emerge. Science marches on!

I've analyzed my data over several days now. While there is definite
indication of a cyclic darkening/lightening, there is still an overall
trend towards darkening.

Disturbingly, data from the southern hemisphere shows exactly the
reverse trend - the only reasonable explanation is a nefarious plot by
Australia to steal our light! With heavy heart, I must conclude that we
are on the dim side of a widening Lightness Gap!

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:27:19 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

Strider wrote:
snip
It seems like there is an excess of methane floating about.

Sorry about that. Ran out of Beano...

Anybody got videotapes of the classic "Cecil and Beano" cartoons?


(Liked your cute cat and dog pictures at
http://bobqat.com/Essays/Qritters/Ba.../BarbGuys.html
by the way.)

--
"Large-scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States
and U.S. democracy than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network."
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/st.../17876456.html

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:01:41 -0500, Rex Tincher
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:27:19 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

Strider wrote:
snip
It seems like there is an excess of methane floating about.

Sorry about that. Ran out of Beano...

Anybody got videotapes of the classic "Cecil and Beano" cartoons?

Cecile and Beany.

Help Cecile Help!

Coming Beany Boy!


Ah..childhood...

Gunner



(Liked your cute cat and dog pictures at
http://bobqat.com/Essays/Qritters/Ba.../BarbGuys.html
by the way.)



"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the
nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding
fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although
it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave
rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the
Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic
civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to
participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the
Second Amendment will always be important."
-- Senator John F. Kennedy, (D) 1960

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:40:31 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:01:41 -0500, Rex Tincher
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:27:19 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

Strider wrote:
snip
It seems like there is an excess of methane floating about.

Sorry about that. Ran out of Beano...

Anybody got videotapes of the classic "Cecil and Beano" cartoons?

Cecile and Beany.

Cecile? I always thought he was a male seasick sea serpent. G
Sue


Help Cecile Help!

Coming Beany Boy!


Ah..childhood...

Gunner



(Liked your cute cat and dog pictures at
http://bobqat.com/Essays/Qritters/Ba.../BarbGuys.html
by the way.)



"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the
nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding
fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although
it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave
rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the
Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic
civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to
participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the
Second Amendment will always be important."
-- Senator John F. Kennedy, (D) 1960

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:27:13 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:40:31 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:01:41 -0500, Rex Tincher
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:27:19 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

Strider wrote:
snip
It seems like there is an excess of methane floating about.

Sorry about that. Ran out of Beano...

Anybody got videotapes of the classic "Cecil and Beano" cartoons?

Cecile and Beany.

Cecile? I always thought he was a male seasick sea serpent. G
Sue


YAY!! Thats the one! Good girl!

Gunner, gonna be 50, Tuesday...sigh.... showing his age.



Help Cecile Help!

Coming Beany Boy!


Ah..childhood...

Gunner



(Liked your cute cat and dog pictures at
http://bobqat.com/Essays/Qritters/Ba.../BarbGuys.html
by the way.)



"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the
nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding
fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although
it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave
rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the
Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic
civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to
participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the
Second Amendment will always be important."
-- Senator John F. Kennedy, (D) 1960



"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the
nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding
fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although
it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave
rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the
Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic
civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to
participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the
Second Amendment will always be important."
-- Senator John F. Kennedy, (D) 1960