Petitions, petitions - A Schattie-like response.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:55:31 +1100, "ant"
wrote:

Here in Australia, the climate has definitely changed, and it's having a
devastating effect. Whether it's just a blip, or part of something bigger,
we don't know.but it's forcing everyone to sit up and take notice.

There is storm happening right now here in Sydney Pyrmont.

Suzie
--
Suzieflame

Adieu alt.horror

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:18:45 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap:


The "coming ice age of the 70's" was a creation of popular magazines
of ther time (perhaps a spinoff of the "nuclear winter" warnings) and
was roundly scoffed at in scientific circles.


Like the "global warming" crap coming out of Hollywood today.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:19:46 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap:


Do what you want, but don't tell me what to do, dumbass.

Thus my fears are personified.


Yer a dumbass. You fear goldfish.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Dec 15, 5:19 pm, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 15, 4:02 pm, Harry wrote:

Do what you want, but don't tell me what to do, dumbass.

Thus my fears are personified.- Hide quoted text -


Ok. He could have left of "dumbass". But then we would all suspect
that it wasn't really "Harry" now wouldn't we? But besides that he is
correct isn't he?

I haven't heard of one GW advocate that has foregone any modern
convenience. But rather their solutions seem to be to rationalize why
their own use is justified if only those damn other people would do
more. I hear that Darryl Hannah helps. She uses bio-diesel in her
Hummer.

On Dec 15, 5:22 pm, Richard Henry wrote:

Good example. The Montreal Protocol (reducing CFC production to
protect the ozone layer) seems to be working.

Or, more likely, the natural trend continues.

On Dec 16, 8:20 am, pigo wrote:
On Dec 15, 5:22 pm, Richard Henry wrote:

Good example. The Montreal Protocol (reducing CFC production to
protect the ozone layer) seems to be working.

Or, more likely, the natural trend continues.

There is no "natural trend" of CFCs. They are entirely man-made.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:19:28 -0800 (PST), pigo
wrote this crap:

I haven't heard of one GW advocate that has foregone any modern
convenience. But rather their solutions seem to be to rationalize why
their own use is justified if only those damn other people would do
more. I hear that Darryl Hannah helps. She uses bio-diesel in her
Hummer.


I heard that Sheryl Crow uses bio-diesel in her limo-party-bus while
she tours the US. And she chewed out Algore for not using bio-fuel in
his chartered jet.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:46:36 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap:

Good example. The Montreal Protocol (reducing CFC production to
protect the ozone layer) seems to be working.

Or, more likely, the natural trend continues.

There is no "natural trend" of CFCs. They are entirely man-made.


You can thank Boeing for putting CFCs in the atmosphere. When they
were testing their jets, they had to simulate high altitude flight.
They would pump them full of CFCs and test for leaks. When they were
done, they released the CFCs into the atmosphere.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

In article ,
The Real Bev wrote:

Consider that the choice is not between doing something obvious and
doing something stupid but between trying to ameliorate the problems
caused by climate change and/or pollution and pretty much sending the
world's economy down the tubes.

It is going to be down the tubes if there is no action taken on AGW.
As much as AGW deniers demand absolute proof (Which science cannot do)
that AGW is happening before taking action, they tend to assume that
major economic harm is already an absolute proof if polices and major
actions is done to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions. There is actually strong probability that implementing
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by industrialized nations could
save money or even make money. This comes from a combination of more
energy efficiency, the lower costs of other forms of non fossil fuel
energy sources if the price of fossil fuels continues to rise...

http://tinyurl.com/yp6va4

One of the most pessimistic reports of economic scenario with
curtailment of greenhouse gases in an industrialized nation is the Stern
Report... Range of economic hardship implementing reduction greenhouse
gas emissions in industrialize nations range from 1% reduction of GDP to
reduction to annual economic growth of the GDP. Letting AGW go unbated
could lead up to 20% reduction of GDP, according to the Stern Report.

http://tinyurl.com/ye5to7
http://tinyurl.com/2xa3m8
http://tinyurl.com/264vnb

There are downsides as well as upsides and either way involves a gamble.
I don't think it's sensible to bet that the sky will fall within my
grandchildren's lifetime.

http://tinyurl.com/2edjk9

" As Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, told reporters this month, "We are all used to talking about
these impacts coming in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren.
Now we know that it's us."

On Dec 16, 9:46 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:20 am, pigo wrote:

On Dec 15, 5:22 pm, Richard Henry wrote:

Good example. The Montreal Protocol (reducing CFC production to
protect the ozone layer) seems to be working.

Or, more likely, the natural trend continues.

There is no "natural trend" of CFCs. They are entirely man-made.

Not a point since I was talking about the ozone layer.