Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
factory? Which is better for the environment?
And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
possible.
> And do
> what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
> more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
> been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
> as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
> regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
> CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
of regulation.
> Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
> from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
> going to pack up and leave that have not already?
What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> Are the car
> companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
> more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
> change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
well expect that production to move there too.
> They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
factory? Which is better for the environment?
And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
possible.
> And do
> what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
> more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
> been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
> as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
> regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
> CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
of regulation.
> Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
> from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
> going to pack up and leave that have not already?
What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> Are the car
> companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
> more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
> change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
well expect that production to move there too.
#5192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:21 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>> comparison with any other country.
>
>Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>consumption than the US.
Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>> comparison with any other country.
>
>Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>consumption than the US.
Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#5193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:21 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>> comparison with any other country.
>
>Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>consumption than the US.
Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>> comparison with any other country.
>
>Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>consumption than the US.
Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#5194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:21 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>> comparison with any other country.
>
>Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>consumption than the US.
Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>> comparison with any other country.
>
>Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>consumption than the US.
Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#5195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010931.343f1718@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> >>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>> > Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>> > China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>> See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>> When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>> good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>> a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>> going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>> where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
> the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
> Kyoto gets implemented?
There are lots of products still made in the USA. Try reading the
packages at your favorite mega retailer. As the imbalance of regulation
increases less and less production will remain in the USA.
> Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
What 3rd world cars are being sold in the USA? None that I know of.
The closest you might get to that may be the now defunct yugo. Maybe
back in the 80s the first hyundai's a kia's from south korea, might have
barely qualified, but south korea hardly counts as third world now.
> Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
> fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
> Walmart lately?
I check the labels of everything I buy. And there is alot still made
in the USA. The items I bought for my mother's birthday present were
all made in the USA.
> Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
> the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
> we can run our home appliances on them?
I've already delt with this invalid diversionary arguement from you
in other posts. If it becomes economically feasiable even electric power
generation will be relocated. So long as infastructure costs stand in the
way it won't. And of course that's why you chose it, it's the special
case you can try to hide behind.
>> Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>> of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>> of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>> solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>> squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>> that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>> effect.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> >>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>> > Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>> > China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>> See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>> When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>> good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>> a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>> going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>> where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
> the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
> Kyoto gets implemented?
There are lots of products still made in the USA. Try reading the
packages at your favorite mega retailer. As the imbalance of regulation
increases less and less production will remain in the USA.
> Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
What 3rd world cars are being sold in the USA? None that I know of.
The closest you might get to that may be the now defunct yugo. Maybe
back in the 80s the first hyundai's a kia's from south korea, might have
barely qualified, but south korea hardly counts as third world now.
> Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
> fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
> Walmart lately?
I check the labels of everything I buy. And there is alot still made
in the USA. The items I bought for my mother's birthday present were
all made in the USA.
> Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
> the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
> we can run our home appliances on them?
I've already delt with this invalid diversionary arguement from you
in other posts. If it becomes economically feasiable even electric power
generation will be relocated. So long as infastructure costs stand in the
way it won't. And of course that's why you chose it, it's the special
case you can try to hide behind.
>> Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>> of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>> of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>> solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>> squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>> that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>> effect.
#5196
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010931.343f1718@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> >>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>> > Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>> > China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>> See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>> When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>> good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>> a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>> going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>> where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
> the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
> Kyoto gets implemented?
There are lots of products still made in the USA. Try reading the
packages at your favorite mega retailer. As the imbalance of regulation
increases less and less production will remain in the USA.
> Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
What 3rd world cars are being sold in the USA? None that I know of.
The closest you might get to that may be the now defunct yugo. Maybe
back in the 80s the first hyundai's a kia's from south korea, might have
barely qualified, but south korea hardly counts as third world now.
> Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
> fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
> Walmart lately?
I check the labels of everything I buy. And there is alot still made
in the USA. The items I bought for my mother's birthday present were
all made in the USA.
> Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
> the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
> we can run our home appliances on them?
I've already delt with this invalid diversionary arguement from you
in other posts. If it becomes economically feasiable even electric power
generation will be relocated. So long as infastructure costs stand in the
way it won't. And of course that's why you chose it, it's the special
case you can try to hide behind.
>> Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>> of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>> of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>> solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>> squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>> that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>> effect.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> >>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>> > Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>> > China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>> See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>> When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>> good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>> a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>> going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>> where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
> the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
> Kyoto gets implemented?
There are lots of products still made in the USA. Try reading the
packages at your favorite mega retailer. As the imbalance of regulation
increases less and less production will remain in the USA.
> Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
What 3rd world cars are being sold in the USA? None that I know of.
The closest you might get to that may be the now defunct yugo. Maybe
back in the 80s the first hyundai's a kia's from south korea, might have
barely qualified, but south korea hardly counts as third world now.
> Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
> fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
> Walmart lately?
I check the labels of everything I buy. And there is alot still made
in the USA. The items I bought for my mother's birthday present were
all made in the USA.
> Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
> the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
> we can run our home appliances on them?
I've already delt with this invalid diversionary arguement from you
in other posts. If it becomes economically feasiable even electric power
generation will be relocated. So long as infastructure costs stand in the
way it won't. And of course that's why you chose it, it's the special
case you can try to hide behind.
>> Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>> of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>> of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>> solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>> squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>> that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>> effect.
#5197
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010931.343f1718@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> >>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>> > Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>> > China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>> See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>> When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>> good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>> a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>> going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>> where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
> the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
> Kyoto gets implemented?
There are lots of products still made in the USA. Try reading the
packages at your favorite mega retailer. As the imbalance of regulation
increases less and less production will remain in the USA.
> Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
What 3rd world cars are being sold in the USA? None that I know of.
The closest you might get to that may be the now defunct yugo. Maybe
back in the 80s the first hyundai's a kia's from south korea, might have
barely qualified, but south korea hardly counts as third world now.
> Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
> fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
> Walmart lately?
I check the labels of everything I buy. And there is alot still made
in the USA. The items I bought for my mother's birthday present were
all made in the USA.
> Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
> the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
> we can run our home appliances on them?
I've already delt with this invalid diversionary arguement from you
in other posts. If it becomes economically feasiable even electric power
generation will be relocated. So long as infastructure costs stand in the
way it won't. And of course that's why you chose it, it's the special
case you can try to hide behind.
>> Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>> of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>> of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>> solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>> squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>> that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>> effect.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> >>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>> > Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>> > China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>> See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>> When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>> good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>> a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>> going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>> where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
> the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
> Kyoto gets implemented?
There are lots of products still made in the USA. Try reading the
packages at your favorite mega retailer. As the imbalance of regulation
increases less and less production will remain in the USA.
> Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
What 3rd world cars are being sold in the USA? None that I know of.
The closest you might get to that may be the now defunct yugo. Maybe
back in the 80s the first hyundai's a kia's from south korea, might have
barely qualified, but south korea hardly counts as third world now.
> Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
> fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
> Walmart lately?
I check the labels of everything I buy. And there is alot still made
in the USA. The items I bought for my mother's birthday present were
all made in the USA.
> Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
> the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
> we can run our home appliances on them?
I've already delt with this invalid diversionary arguement from you
in other posts. If it becomes economically feasiable even electric power
generation will be relocated. So long as infastructure costs stand in the
way it won't. And of course that's why you chose it, it's the special
case you can try to hide behind.
>> Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>> of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>> of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>> solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>> squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>> that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>> effect.
#5198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and therefore
produces no CO2."
Go back to grade school:
"Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
"waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010827.65f855a@posting.google.co m...
> "MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> > fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> > sources of CO2 emissions....
> >
> > gotta ban the bloody cows!
>
>
> 1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
>
> 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore produces no CO2.
>
> Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> > past.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No we don't!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> > does
> > not prove
> > > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't
prove
> > anything. The
> > > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of
inputs.
> > Looking
> > at one
> > > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> > As a
> > > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> > research
> > don't even
> > > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> > few
> > years.
> > > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> > trying
> > to
> > infere
> > > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the
temperature.
> > The
> > errors
> > > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> > they
> > are
> > > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion
and
> > then
> > groomed the
> > > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the
establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > >> > loon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> > > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> > > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> > "decided
> > > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> > some
> > > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should
screw
> > the
> > > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> > > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on
their
> > > > >> operation?
> > > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> > establishment
> > > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > And your data is where?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you,
because
> > > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you
wouldn't
> > > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data,
not
> > > just what your left wing wackos say.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > > >far more likely cause.
> > > >
> > > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > > warming.
> > >
> > > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar
heating
> > (think
> > > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> > behind
> > > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
produces no CO2."
Go back to grade school:
"Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
"waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010827.65f855a@posting.google.co m...
> "MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> > fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> > sources of CO2 emissions....
> >
> > gotta ban the bloody cows!
>
>
> 1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
>
> 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore produces no CO2.
>
> Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> > past.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No we don't!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> > does
> > not prove
> > > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't
prove
> > anything. The
> > > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of
inputs.
> > Looking
> > at one
> > > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> > As a
> > > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> > research
> > don't even
> > > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> > few
> > years.
> > > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> > trying
> > to
> > infere
> > > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the
temperature.
> > The
> > errors
> > > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> > they
> > are
> > > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion
and
> > then
> > groomed the
> > > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the
establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > >> > loon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> > > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> > > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> > "decided
> > > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> > some
> > > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should
screw
> > the
> > > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> > > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on
their
> > > > >> operation?
> > > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> > establishment
> > > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > And your data is where?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you,
because
> > > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you
wouldn't
> > > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data,
not
> > > just what your left wing wackos say.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > > >far more likely cause.
> > > >
> > > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > > warming.
> > >
> > > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar
heating
> > (think
> > > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> > behind
> > > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
#5199
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and therefore
produces no CO2."
Go back to grade school:
"Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
"waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010827.65f855a@posting.google.co m...
> "MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> > fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> > sources of CO2 emissions....
> >
> > gotta ban the bloody cows!
>
>
> 1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
>
> 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore produces no CO2.
>
> Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> > past.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No we don't!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> > does
> > not prove
> > > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't
prove
> > anything. The
> > > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of
inputs.
> > Looking
> > at one
> > > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> > As a
> > > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> > research
> > don't even
> > > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> > few
> > years.
> > > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> > trying
> > to
> > infere
> > > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the
temperature.
> > The
> > errors
> > > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> > they
> > are
> > > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion
and
> > then
> > groomed the
> > > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the
establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > >> > loon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> > > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> > > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> > "decided
> > > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> > some
> > > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should
screw
> > the
> > > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> > > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on
their
> > > > >> operation?
> > > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> > establishment
> > > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > And your data is where?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you,
because
> > > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you
wouldn't
> > > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data,
not
> > > just what your left wing wackos say.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > > >far more likely cause.
> > > >
> > > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > > warming.
> > >
> > > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar
heating
> > (think
> > > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> > behind
> > > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
produces no CO2."
Go back to grade school:
"Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
"waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010827.65f855a@posting.google.co m...
> "MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> > fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> > sources of CO2 emissions....
> >
> > gotta ban the bloody cows!
>
>
> 1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
>
> 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore produces no CO2.
>
> Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> > past.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No we don't!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> > does
> > not prove
> > > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't
prove
> > anything. The
> > > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of
inputs.
> > Looking
> > at one
> > > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> > As a
> > > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> > research
> > don't even
> > > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> > few
> > years.
> > > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> > trying
> > to
> > infere
> > > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the
temperature.
> > The
> > errors
> > > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> > they
> > are
> > > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion
and
> > then
> > groomed the
> > > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the
establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > >> > loon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> > > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> > > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> > "decided
> > > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> > some
> > > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should
screw
> > the
> > > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> > > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on
their
> > > > >> operation?
> > > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> > establishment
> > > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > And your data is where?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you,
because
> > > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you
wouldn't
> > > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data,
not
> > > just what your left wing wackos say.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > > >far more likely cause.
> > > >
> > > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > > warming.
> > >
> > > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar
heating
> > (think
> > > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> > behind
> > > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
#5200
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and therefore
produces no CO2."
Go back to grade school:
"Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
"waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010827.65f855a@posting.google.co m...
> "MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> > fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> > sources of CO2 emissions....
> >
> > gotta ban the bloody cows!
>
>
> 1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
>
> 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore produces no CO2.
>
> Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> > past.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No we don't!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> > does
> > not prove
> > > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't
prove
> > anything. The
> > > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of
inputs.
> > Looking
> > at one
> > > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> > As a
> > > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> > research
> > don't even
> > > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> > few
> > years.
> > > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> > trying
> > to
> > infere
> > > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the
temperature.
> > The
> > errors
> > > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> > they
> > are
> > > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion
and
> > then
> > groomed the
> > > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the
establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > >> > loon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> > > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> > > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> > "decided
> > > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> > some
> > > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should
screw
> > the
> > > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> > > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on
their
> > > > >> operation?
> > > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> > establishment
> > > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > And your data is where?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you,
because
> > > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you
wouldn't
> > > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data,
not
> > > just what your left wing wackos say.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > > >far more likely cause.
> > > >
> > > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > > warming.
> > >
> > > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar
heating
> > (think
> > > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> > behind
> > > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
produces no CO2."
Go back to grade school:
"Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
"waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010827.65f855a@posting.google.co m...
> "MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> > fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> > sources of CO2 emissions....
> >
> > gotta ban the bloody cows!
>
>
> 1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
>
> 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore produces no CO2.
>
> Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> > past.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No we don't!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> > does
> > not prove
> > > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't
prove
> > anything. The
> > > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of
inputs.
> > Looking
> > at one
> > > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> > As a
> > > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> > research
> > don't even
> > > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> > few
> > years.
> > > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> > trying
> > to
> > infere
> > > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the
temperature.
> > The
> > errors
> > > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> > they
> > are
> > > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion
and
> > then
> > groomed the
> > > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the
establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > >> > loon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> > > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> > > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> > "decided
> > > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> > some
> > > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should
screw
> > the
> > > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> > > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on
their
> > > > >> operation?
> > > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> > establishment
> > > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > And your data is where?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you,
because
> > > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you
wouldn't
> > > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data,
not
> > > just what your left wing wackos say.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > > >far more likely cause.
> > > >
> > > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > > warming.
> > >
> > > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar
heating
> > (think
> > > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> > behind
> > > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >