Petitions, petitions - A Schattie-like response.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:09:15 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap:


I heard today that co2 emissions are up an average 18% since the
signing kyoto. The averages a 21% by the signers, 10% by the non
signers and 6% by the US.

Where did you hear that? Was it per capita or total national
emissions? Was it based on 1999 (the year of the protocol) or 2005
(the year the reductiosn were supposed to have started)?




A thousand years ago, Lief Erikson discovered a land he named
Greenland. He started a colony there. I saw some of the buildings
his people built.

He could not have started a colony unless trees grew there. Trees
were used to build houses and barns. Trees were used to build their
furniture. Trees were used to heat their houses, and cook their
meals.

Today, no trees grow where Erikson started his colony. The colony
failed. Simple logic says that it must have been warmer there.

If it was warmer a thousand years ago, howcum nobody wrote about the
oceans being 200 feet higher? Howcum nobody wrote about terrific
storms? and terrible weather patterns? The Norse would have noticed
it because they had those beautiful fjords.





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

On Dec 19, 7:57 pm, "Norm" wrote:
"pigo" wrote in message news:8f223a4a-046a-4660-9232-
On Dec 19, 9:55 am, Richard Henry wrote:

I don't attribute it to anything. The observed data for the ozone
hole size, and/or ozone layer thickness, have always been subject to
variations from year to year. The long-term trend of growing
Antarctic-winter ozone hole size was what kicked off the
environmental
concern in the first place.

The Montreal Convention banning CFCs in most uses was signed in 1988.
The long-term trend of the ozone hole measurements since 1995 have
shown what appears to be a recovery process, in spite of year-to-year
variations.- Hide quoted text -
I heard today that co2 emissions are up an average 18% since the
signing kyoto. The averages a 21% by the signers, 10% by the non
signers and 6% by the US.

Where did you hear that? Was it per capita or total national
emissions? Was it based on 1999 (the year of the protocol) or 2005
(the year the reductiosn were supposed to have started)?- Hide quoted
text -

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._schmyoto.html

Have a look at some of the other headlines. Clearly another "Fair and
balanced" source.

In any case, I'm sure you have a point to make, but you seem to have hit
send too soon.

Let me see if I can figure this out.
According to figures cooked up by some redneck blog you came across the US
is failing at a slower rate than almost everybody else. From that you are
extending that we should all give up?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have kids norm? Then maybe YOU shouldn't give up. If you do, then
I am so far ahead of you as far as having reduced my impact on the
planet that it can't be calculated. And that is if you only have one.
For some reason I picture you with ....8?

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:27:27 +1100, "ant" wrote:

Suzieflame wrote:
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.

Christmas party? Pyrmont's pretty small!

Last three days in NZ.

I will leave a note for you in a bookstore at Harbourside later
today...

Suzie
--
Suzieflame

Adieu alt.horror