You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always starts with "balls". Something Newtonian I guess.
CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour. CO2 also causes growth in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens. Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How he does this, I haven't a clue, but there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and I) does this. Personally I don't think you can discuss "depth" and exposing real feelings (whatever that means) while you're on a "balls" rant. You'd never hear the Dalai Lama saying "balls". Is that because he's hiding his real feelings? Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the others in this world, including Bush. P. ----- Original Message ---- From: John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Balls. The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to) One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 level or the temperature. Technology can however. Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that CO2 has been rising? Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable. I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food. It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not really present. So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as things are without preconceptions. It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being shallow not deep. Truth isn't our friend, nor is light. Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies. It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing. On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called "hockey stick" graph that showed how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial Revolution. These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing. The "insufferable arrogance" spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been largely ignored in the "discussion" on global warming. Like I said before, lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance. Perhaps even try some solid science. P. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeff Fink < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of "global warming". He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the warmest ever and you buy it as gospel. There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility of some on this forum scares me. It has been much warmer not so long ago. Here is another example if your attention span will allow: We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet. They like it cool and moist, but don't like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds. There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the Colorado rockies at Florissant at an elevation over 8000 feet. They are exhibited in place in excavated pits. I saw them. But, they looked a little strange. They did not look entirely like rock. I asked about it at the visitor's center, and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. John. The rest is WOOD! John. How old aren't they? Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs. Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. I saw it on display outside at Disneyland around 1995. It was located right next to the lake near Adventure Land . Those of you who get to Disneyland may still be able to see it if it hasn't rotted away by now. There are many things about this planet's history that don't line up with present day thinking. Let us not be duped into making big expensive mistakes by selectively ignoring certain historical data. Again I wonder. What happened to the ice age we were threatened with in the late 70's. It's ironic that many global warming events this past season were cancelled due to extreme winter conditions. Jeff P.S. John. This is only my third post in over a year. I read your stuff, and you post almost everyday. You could give me the courtesy of reading all of what I said before you publicly call me an idiot, and perhaps point out specific errors in my writings so that I may be enlightened. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM
