Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.
Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.
Do you disagree with my statement that there are reams of research to
back up the claim that changing refrigerants has worked?

Did you not read the articles? There is more now than back in the 70's,
how does that square with your theory?


Uh, it's not the amount of freon in use, it's the amount of freon in the
air that matters as far as the ozone layer goes. It's now recycled. Used
to be just let out into the environment.

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.
What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.

Cite?

He cited several times yesterday, where were you?

I don't see it. Please show me. I really need to see statistics where
there is more Freon IN THE AIR now than before the ban.

On 11/4/09 9:43 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:38 am, wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...ronment/03gore....

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.

If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

Did you read this yet?
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
I have posted it several times.... Your scientists are no smarter than
"mine". And it is far from "settled science".


The tulsa beacon is a fundamentalist, right-wing, anti-science rag.

From wiki:

The Tulsa Beacon is a weekly newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was
founded by Charles and Susan Biggs under the corporate name Biggs
Communications, Inc. The first paper was published in April, 2001.

The Tulsa Beacon features news from Tulsa and the surrounding area. It
includes local columnists, a recipe page, church news, columns by Dr.
Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson, local editorials and letters to the
editor, syndicated columnists (Robert Novak, David Limbaugh, Mona Charen
and Walter Williams), local sports, television listings, movie reviews,
classified ads and legal notices. The Tulsa Beacon is a legal newspaper
and a member of the Oklahoma Press Association. The Tulsa Beacon has a
conservative editorial policy with an evangelical Christian slant. For
example they promote the teaching of creation science and intelligent
design as equal alternatives to evolution

Yet another dimwit cite by the newsgroup's resident dimwit, using his
JustHate ID here.

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?


Because all the scientists who are publishing are getting millions nay
billions of $. They make big oil execs look like pikers. (Let's see who
agrees with this.)

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:01:24 -0500, H the K
wrote:

On 11/4/09 9:43 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:38 am, wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...ronment/03gore....

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.

If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

Did you read this yet?
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
I have posted it several times.... Your scientists are no smarter than
"mine". And it is far from "settled science".


The tulsa beacon is a fundamentalist, right-wing, anti-science rag.

From wiki:

The Tulsa Beacon is a weekly newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was
founded by Charles and Susan Biggs under the corporate name Biggs
Communications, Inc. The first paper was published in April, 2001.

The Tulsa Beacon features news from Tulsa and the surrounding area. It
includes local columnists, a recipe page, church news, columns by Dr.
Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson, local editorials and letters to the
editor, syndicated columnists (Robert Novak, David Limbaugh, Mona Charen
and Walter Williams), local sports, television listings, movie reviews,
classified ads and legal notices. The Tulsa Beacon is a legal newspaper
and a member of the Oklahoma Press Association. The Tulsa Beacon has a
conservative editorial policy with an evangelical Christian slant. For
example they promote the teaching of creation science and intelligent
design as equal alternatives to evolution

Yet another dimwit cite by the newsgroup's resident dimwit, using his
JustHate ID here.

Purposeful ignorance.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:55:12 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.
Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

You just keep talking like there is only two people against it, this is
just not true. It is just plain stupid for laymen like us to
definitively say, "my scientists are right, yours are wrong". Here, at
least skim through this one..

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Then, tell me "my scientists are better than yours.... It is not settled
science, even if "your" talking heads say so...


And there you go!! NOWHERE in that article do any scientists say that
global warming isn't happening.

And nowhere in the article does it say that pigs can't fly. But, guess
what, they can't.

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:55:12 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.
Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.
You just keep talking like there is only two people against it, this is
just not true. It is just plain stupid for laymen like us to
definitively say, "my scientists are right, yours are wrong". Here, at
least skim through this one..

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Then, tell me "my scientists are better than yours.... It is not settled
science, even if "your" talking heads say so...

And there you go!! NOWHERE in that article do any scientists say that
global warming isn't happening.

And nowhere in the article does it say that pigs can't fly. But, guess
what, they can't.

Uh, the article was about a specific subject, global warming.

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

If you are not willing to stand up and defend your data and your
conclusions in front of your critics then you aren't too confident in
your data and nobody else should be either.

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.

Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

Do you disagree with my statement that there are reams of research to
back up the claim that changing refrigerants has worked?

Worked what?

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)

You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.


Cite?

The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.