On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> My bad...for some reason I thought you seemed to harp on no changes for 10
> years.
>
>
I didn't even harp on 16 or 17.


>
> > Your are changing the range to fit your needs.
>
> No, I am not. 10 years or 17..still a very short period of time when these
> cycles are 100's of thousands of years old.
>
>
I'm saying if you go out of the talking points range, meaning pre-1880,
then today is not very warm compared to midieval warming period.


>
> > So what is your issue? Do you even realize the side your on requires the
> US
> > to close most of it's factories? And cap-n-trade excludes China and India
> > making the entire exercise pointless? What are you looking for?
> >
>
> What 'side' am I on Sam? Are you bringing politics into this?
>
>
No politics. The side that says believe or you're a denier, a skeptic and
anti-science.


> What am I looking for? A way to reduce global pollution. Not simple, I
> understand, but I always say you should dream big.
>
>
We've been doing that for years. I hate pollution, I've been driving low
emission cars since the early 90's.

> >
> Wow, is that really what you think I said? You're now arguning like Larry,
> no thoughts, just blather.
>

That is the way it comes across, yes. As for 'no thoughts', I put a lot of
> thought into my responses on this thread. Sucks you cannot, or will not,
> see that.
>

Because I never said anything to make you believe that, that's the straw
man they fed you. Nobody that doubts global warming wants more pollution.
That's ridiculous. You don't even support cap-n-trade so we're on the same
side. You just need to realize you're being used to sell cap-n-trade for
the lords.


> >
> > What do you want to do? Build more dirty factories in Asia? What exactly
> is
> > your solution?
> >
>
> I want to reduce global pollution. Again, I am not sure of the best way to
> achieve that, but I do not think 'cap & trade' is the way to do it - 'cap &
> trade' reminds me of the old 'shell game'
>

Most want less pollution. The problem is the global warming movement
creates more pollution by sending all the work to Asia where profits trump
environmental concerns..


I think pumping crap into the atmosphere is bad for the planet and would
> love to see us, as a species, not a nation, take reasonable steps to limit
> the pollution, yet, you seem to see me as a 'global warming' nut. Not much
> more I can do to show I am not. I guess since global warming proponents
> want to reduce pollution you see me as the same..who knows.
>
> http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2011

CO2 time series
1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011
Canada    16.20    16.30    17.90    17.80    17.00    15.70    16.00
16.20
Chile    2.77    3.12    4.16    4.50    4.81    4.81    5.10    5.17
China    2.20    2.90    2.80    4.50    5.90    6.20    6.60    7.20
Dominica    0.93    1.12    1.17    1.71    2.08    2.11    2.27    2.32
Dominican Republic    1.16    1.55    2.22    2.05    2.21    2.20
2.32    2.34
Ecuador    1.53    1.74    1.69    1.97    1.97    1.96    2.07    2.08
Egypt    1.60    1.56    1.87    2.30    2.41    2.39    2.52    2.53
El Salvador    0.49    0.90    0.98    1.08    1.15    1.15    1.23    1.25
Equatorial Guinea    0.27    2.64    4.48    5.12    4.50    4.41
4.60    4.57
Finland    11.44    11.63    11.07    11.18    11.44    10.53    10.79
10.27
France    6.90    6.70    6.90    6.70    6.40    6.10    6.10    5.70
Germany    12.90    11.20    10.50    10.20    10.40    9.70    10.20
9.90
India    0.80    0.90    1.00    1.10    1.30    1.40    1.50    1.60
Indonesia    0.90    1.10    1.40    1.60    1.70    1.90    2.00    2.00
Iran    3.70    4.60    5.20    6.40    5.20    5.20    5.40    5.50
Iraq    4.05    4.24    4.05    3.65    3.72    3.64    3.78    3.76
UK    10.30    9.60    9.30    9.20    8.70    7.90    8.10    7.50
USA    19.70    19.70    20.80    20.00    18.80    17.30    17.80    17.30

Do you see the trend?

> We have reduced pollution way more than required. Yet we still talk about
> this.
>
>

> Because maybe there is more to be done.
>
>
Just don't call it science.

.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:367139
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to