Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - environment global warming

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

environment global warming
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Steve,  

   

I don’t disagree with the notion that we ought to be conservators of the environment. I pick up behind me when I accidentally litter, clean up where we picnic and don’t waste water, prefer a cleaner running engine than one that spews dirt into the air and so on. I firmly believe that no reasonable person would disagree that cleaning up when we are done or show care when we deal with what we do to the environment is a good and responsible thing to do. But to assume that we are influencing the globe’s temperature is just not rational. If you claim to be naïve and believe in Santa Claus, I’ll join you if it means being responsible custodians of the environment. But to believe that we can, are able, to affect climate change, is just not rational.   

   

Take the Krakatoa eruptions for instance: Years before the 1883 eruption, the volcano regularly spewed ash into the atmosphere reaching up to 20,000’ with the noise being heard up to 100 miles away.  The August 1883 eruptions caused 100’ tsunamis and boats rocked in South Africa, thousands of miles away because of them. The sound of the explosions could be heard in Australia more than 2,000 miles away and in Mauritius, nearly 3,000 miles away. It shot more than 20 cubic kilometers of ash and toxic gasses, such as sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, 50 miles up into the stratosphere and spread it all over the planet, causing a five-year global acid rain. The sky was blood red and the moon was blue for years after the explosion and artists painted red sunsets in Sweden and Europe. The amount of ash that fell back to the earth covered about one million square kilometers drastically altering the ocean floor in the area and increasing the landmass of several islands in the area.   

   

In 1888, five years after the event, everything was back to normal. The planet cleaned the air, cleaned the ocean, normalized the temperatures, normalized the weather, and today that area is what some tourists call a pristine environment.   

   

Steve, I try to be rational about this global warming thing, but if I see the amount of soot, acid and pollution Saddam Hussein launched into the atmosphere after setting those oil fields on fire in the nineties, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, all the other natural events spewing millions of tons of toxic material into the air; an unknown amount of submarine fissures spewing toxic magma into the oceans, massive forest fires – and the planet deals with it, as it has been for millions of years, then it’s hard to swallow the propaganda of global warming as anything but a hoax to blackmail us into parting with very large sums of money. I mean, where have you seen a more blatant fraud than the carbon-offset scheme? Or, the Kyoto treaty?  

   

I say again, I love the planet as you do, and I am an activist for responsible stewardship of resources and life, but this is a swindle, my friend. You wouldn’t part with five bucks if someone proposed this as a business deal to you. You’d probably call the cops.  

   

One more thing. If they say that the temperatures would rise by 1 or 2 deg, how would they measure that? Think about it. I pay tennis with friends about 10 miles from where I live. We like to play at 7 AM in the morning. Some mornings in the winter, the temperature difference is more than 18 degrees between the house and the tennis courts. Never, ever in the 10 years I’ve been playing there several times per week, has the temperature been the same at the house and at the courts. Ten miles? I can go 20 miles west and 1,000’ down to the coast and the temperature would be vastly different again. On the same day. If the wind blows (you’ve heard of the Santa Ana’s, I’m sure) the entire region’s temperature is hay-wire. Where do they measure and when do they measure to come up with a definite 1 deg difference? Satellites? Weather stations? Balloons? How did they do it 1,000 years ago which is the time-frame some fraudsters use to determine the danger we’re in?  

   

Nah. I’d stay with reason, thank you. I know mud when I see mud. This aint mud.   

   

Nico  

   

   

   

   

   

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve (at) Col-East

 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:40 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Analyzer  

  

     

I believe in the hoax.   

    

I find the hostility toward the notion that we might be affecting the environment in a dramatic fashion very odd. Agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, heating and cooling, recreation all contribute. 10,000 years of stable CO2 levels, begin a sharp rise at the dawn of the industrial age. The rate of change is increasing dramatically as billions more people adopt our style of living. The fact that the amount of these gases in the atmosphere influence the temperature cannot seriously be in dispute.   

    

   

    

Oil production has likely peaked. Consumption continues to rise. I guess I'm naive(I still believe in Santa Claus), but this doesn't seem sustainable.   

    

   

    

I love big old radials, belching steam locomotives, and big blocks. But if day to day I can make a little difference, I'll try.  

    

   

    

   

    

Green of Peak..... I like that.....  

    

   

    

Steve  

    

   

    

   

    

---

bowing74(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Wow!  I thought you lived in California Nico. <G>  

bilbo  

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css

 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:03 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Commander-List: environment global warming  

  

   

Steve,  

   

I don’t disagree with the notion that we ought to be conservators of the environment. I pick up behind me when I accidentally litter, clean up where we picnic and don’t waste water, prefer a cleaner running engine than one that spews dirt into the air and so on. I firmly believe that no reasonable person would disagree that cleaning up when we are done or show care when we deal with what we do to the environment is a good and responsible thing to do. But to assume that we are influencing the globe’s temperature is just not rational. If you claim to be naïve and believe in Santa Claus, I’ll join you if it means being responsible custodians of the environment. But to believe that we can, are able, to affect climate change, is just not rational.   

   

Take the Krakatoa eruptions for instance: Years before the 1883 eruption, the volcano regularly spewed ash into the atmosphere reaching up to 20,000’ with the noise being heard up to 100 miles away.  The August 1883 eruptions caused 100’ tsunamis and boats rocked in South Africa, thousands of miles away because of them. The sound of the explosions could be heard in Australia more than 2,000 miles away and in Mauritius, nearly 3,000 miles away. It shot more than 20 cubic kilometers of ash and toxic gasses, such as sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, 50 miles up into the stratosphere and spread it all over the planet, causing a five-year global acid rain. The sky was blood red and the moon was blue for years after the explosion and artists painted red sunsets in Sweden and Europe. The amount of ash that fell back to the earth covered about one million square kilometers drastically altering the ocean floor in the area and increasing the landmass of several islands in the area.   

   

In 1888, five years after the event, everything was back to normal. The planet cleaned the air, cleaned the ocean, normalized the temperatures, normalized the weather, and today that area is what some tourists call a pristine environment.   

   

Steve, I try to be rational about this global warming thing, but if I see the amount of soot, acid and pollution Saddam Hussein launched into the atmosphere after setting those oil fields on fire in the nineties, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, all the other natural events spewing millions of tons of toxic material into the air; an unknown amount of submarine fissures spewing toxic magma into the oceans, massive forest fires – and the planet deals with it, as it has been for millions of years, then it’s hard to swallow the propaganda of global warming as anything but a hoax to blackmail us into parting with very large sums of money. I mean, where have you seen a more blatant fraud than the carbon-offset scheme? Or, the Kyoto treaty?  

   

I say again, I love the planet as you do, and I am an activist for responsible stewardship of resources and life, but this is a swindle, my friend. You wouldn’t part with five bucks if someone proposed this as a business deal to you. You’d probably call the cops.  

   

One more thing. If they say that the temperatures would rise by 1 or 2 deg, how would they measure that? Think about it. I pay tennis with friends about 10 miles from where I live. We like to play at 7 AM in the morning. Some mornings in the winter, the temperature difference is more than 18 degrees between the house and the tennis courts. Never, ever in the 10 years I’ve been playing there several times per week, has the temperature been the same at the house and at the courts. Ten miles? I can go 20 miles west and 1,000’ down to the coast and the temperature would be vastly different again. On the same day. If the wind blows (you’ve heard of the Santa Ana’s, I’m sure) the entire region’s temperature is hay-wire. Where do they measure and when do they measure to come up with a definite 1 deg difference? Satellites? Weather stations? Balloons? How did they do it 1,000 years ago which is the time-frame some fraudsters use to determine the danger we’re in?  

   

Nah. I’d stay with reason, thank you. I know mud when I see mud. This aint mud.   

   

Nico  

   

   

   

   

   

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve (at) Col-East

 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:40 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Analyzer  

  

     

I believe in the hoax.   

    

I find the hostility toward the notion that we might be affecting the environment in a dramatic fashion very odd. Agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, heating and cooling, recreation all contribute. 10,000 years of stable CO2 levels, begin a sharp rise at the dawn of the industrial age. The rate of change is increasing dramatically as billions more people adopt our style of living. The fact that the amount of these gases in the atmosphere influence the temperature cannot seriously be in dispute.   

    

   

    

Oil production has likely peaked. Consumption continues to rise. I guess I'm naive(I still believe in Santa Claus), but this doesn't seem sustainable.   

    

   

    

I love big old radials, belching steam locomotives, and big blocks. But if day to day I can make a little difference, I'll try.  

    

   

    

   

    

Green of Peak..... I like that.....  

    

   

    

Steve  

    

   

    

   

    

---

steve2(at)sover.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: environment global warming

I ask the indulgence of the group for posting, but  I'd like to thank Nico for his words. I'd be happy to chat of-list as this has  strayed from Commander stuff.

  

 Good words Nico, we're not that far apart. But  yeah, I do believe human activity has reached a level to where it can affect the  environment. If I understand just a little of the science (and if the scientists  are right!), carbon dioxide is more persistent versus a lot of other  contaminants, and we're removing a lot of the filtering mechanism for CO2 while  generating more and more of the stuff. There has been a huge spike in Co2 in the  past 200 hundred years, and the rate at which it is increasing, is itself  increasing. It's the highest its been in 800,000 years or some such  thing.

  

 I've read there is a fairly direct relationship  with the amount of Co2 and methane, and climate change. If we accept the premise  that the level of some gases in the atmosphere might influence climate, it  doesn't seem like much of a stretch to believe we are contributing to it.  Whether by war, or normal human activity (hard to tell them apart sometimes), it  is all contributing.

  

 My interest is also somewhat self serving. At the  current rate of growth in consumption of energy and resources, the demand will  far outstrip supply. China alone will out consume the world's supply of both  within a generation. Something is going to have to give.

  

 Peace,

  

 Steve

 [quote]   ---

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Nico,



I have to say that I agree with you totally. The carbon offset theme is 

a huge scam. To repeat myself from yesterday, focusing on JUST CO2 vs. 

Methane and a collection of other greenhouse gases is one indicator of 

the stupidity of the politicians.



I too, living in northern CA, one of the most beautiful places in the 

US, try to behave as if I weren't here. I don't litter, pick up trash 

when I see it, recycle, don't waste water, don't hunt whales or 

elephants (OK, not so many elephants here), live as "green" a lifestyle 

as I can outside of flying, and generally try to be a 

zero-environmental-impact resident.



I am with you 100% regarding the toxic natural events of the planet's 

past. As someone who took a few (albeit informative) environmental 

science classes in college, one thing that becomes clear pretty quickly 

is that it is a stretch, and a conceit, to think that we can destroy the 

planet. The most we can do is make it unlivable for humans & several 

other species. 200 million years after that, the Earth will once again 

be beautiful, never noticing that we were ever here. It will also be 

teeming with new species.



Oceanographers at Scripps have been studying the ocean's ability to 

clean itself. If humans disappeared tomorrow, the oceans would be 100% 

clean and unpolluted in only 3,000 years. That is the merest blink of an 

eye, geologically. Hopefully there would still be whales left then.



A little anecdote here in norCal: For many years there have been ongoing 

battles about logging & clearcutting. While I agree that we shouldn't 

log the Headwaters Forest, I think the logging argument is way 

overblown. I live at the foot of the Santa Cruz Mountains. In 1907, 

after the big SF earthquake, they clearcut the ENTIRE RANGE, from SF 

down to Salinas, for lumber to rebuild San Francisco. Stumps & weeds 

were all that was left as far as the eye can see. A mere 100 years 

later, and I look out my window and see lush, green, forested mountains.



I'll continue to be environmentally responsible, but you won't catch me 

driving a Toyota Prius (based on the owners around here, they should be 

called the "Toyota Pious") and thinking I'm the savior of the 

environment. I bet the carbon footprint of Prius manufacture is 3x a 

normal car.



/ramble mode off/



/John

Bill Bow wrote:

[quote]

 Wow! I thought you lived in California Nico. <G>



 bilbo



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------



 *From:* owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *nico css

 *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:03 PM

 *To:* commander-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* environment global warming



 Steve,



 I don’t disagree with the notion that we ought to be conservators of 

 the environment. I pick up behind me when I accidentally litter, clean 

 up where we picnic and don’t waste water, prefer a cleaner running 

 engine than one that spews dirt into the air and so on. I firmly 

 believe that no reasonable person would disagree that cleaning up when 

 we are done or show care when we deal with what we do to the 

 environment is a good and responsible thing to do. But to assume that 

 we are influencing the globe’s temperature is just not rational. If 

 you claim to be naïve and believe in Santa Claus, I’ll join you if it 

 means being responsible custodians of the environment. But to believe 

 that we can, are able, to affect climate change, is just not rational.



 Take the Krakatoa eruptions for instance: Years before the 1883 

 eruption, the volcano regularly spewed ash into the atmosphere 

 reaching up to 20,000’ with the noise being heard up to 100 miles 

 away. The August 1883 eruptions caused 100’ tsunamis and boats rocked 

 in South Africa, thousands of miles away because of them. The sound of 

 the explosions could be heard in Australia more than 2,000 miles away 

 and in Mauritius, nearly 3,000 miles away. It shot more than 20 cubic 

 kilometers of ash and toxic gasses, such as sulfur dioxide and 

 sulfuric acid, 50 miles up into the stratosphere and spread it all 

 over the planet, causing a five-year global acid rain. The sky was 

 blood red and the moon was blue for years after the explosion and 

 artists painted red sunsets in Sweden and Europe. The amount of ash 

 that fell back to the earth covered about one million square 

 kilometers drastically altering the ocean floor in the area and 

 increasing the landmass of several islands in the area.



 In 1888, five years after the event, everything was back to normal. 

 The planet cleaned the air, cleaned the ocean, normalized the 

 temperatures, normalized the weather, and today that area is what some 

 tourists call a pristine environment.



 Steve, I try to be rational about this global warming thing, but if I 

 see the amount of soot, acid and pollution Saddam Hussein launched 

 into the atmosphere after setting those oil fields on fire in the 

 nineties, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, all the other natural events 

 spewing millions of tons of toxic material into the air; an unknown 

 amount of submarine fissures spewing toxic magma into the oceans, 

 massive forest fires – and the planet deals with it, as it has been 

 for millions of years, then it’s hard to swallow the propaganda of 

 global warming as anything but a hoax to blackmail us into parting 

 with very large sums of money. I mean, where have you seen a more 

 blatant fraud than the carbon-offset scheme? Or, the Kyoto treaty?



 I say again, I love the planet as you do, and I am an activist for 

 responsible stewardship of resources and life, but this is a swindle, 

 my friend. You wouldn’t part with five bucks if someone proposed this 

 as a business deal to you. You’d probably call the cops.



 One more thing. If they say that the temperatures would rise by 1 or 2 

 deg, how would they measure that? Think about it. I pay tennis with 

 friends about 10 miles from where I live. We like to play at 7 AM in 

 the morning. Some mornings in the winter, the temperature difference 

 is more than 18 degrees between the house and the tennis courts. 

 Never, ever in the 10 years I’ve been playing there several times per 

 week, has the temperature been the same at the house and at the 

 courts. Ten miles? I can go 20 miles west and 1,000’ down to the coast 

 and the temperature would be vastly different again. On the same day. 

 If the wind blows (you’ve heard of the Santa Ana’s, I’m sure) the 

 entire region’s temperature is hay-wire. Where do they measure and 

 when do they measure to come up with a definite 1 deg difference? 

 Satellites? Weather stations? Balloons? How did they do it 1,000 years 

 ago which is the time-frame some fraudsters use to determine the 

 danger we’re in?



 Nah. I’d stay with reason, thank you. I know mud when I see mud. This 

 aint mud.



 Nico



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------



 *From:* owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of 

 *Steve (at) Col-East

 *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:40 PM

 *To:* commander-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* Re: Engine Analyzer



 I believe in the hoax.



 I find the hostility toward the notion that we might be affecting the 

 environment in a dramatic fashion very odd. Agriculture, 

 manufacturing, transportation, heating and cooling, recreation all 

 contribute. 10,000 years of stable CO2 levels, begin a sharp rise at 

 the dawn of the industrial age. The rate of change is increasing 

 dramatically as billions more people adopt our style of living. The 

 fact that the amount of these gases in the atmosphere influence the 

 temperature cannot seriously be in dispute.



 Oil production has likely peaked. Consumption continues to rise. I 

 guess I'm naive(I still believe in Santa Claus), but this doesn't seem 

 sustainable.



 I love big old radials, belching steam locomotives, and big blocks. 

 But if day to day I can make a little difference, I'll try.



 Green of Peak..... I like that.....



 Steve



 ---

moe(at)rosspistons.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Nico,  

   

Thanks for this.    

   

Moe  

N680RR  

680F(p)  

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css

 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:03 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Commander-List: environment global warming  

  

   

Steve,  

   

I don’t disagree with the notion that we ought to be conservators of the environment. I pick up behind me when I accidentally litter, clean up where we picnic and don’t waste water, prefer a cleaner running engine than one that spews dirt into the air and so on. I firmly believe that no reasonable person would disagree that cleaning up when we are done or show care when we deal with what we do to the environment is a good and responsible thing to do. But to assume that we are influencing the globe’s temperature is just not rational. If you claim to be naïve and believe in Santa Claus, I’ll join you if it means being responsible custodians of the environment. But to believe that we can, are able, to affect climate change, is just not rational.   

   

Take the Krakatoa eruptions for instance: Years before the 1883 eruption, the volcano regularly spewed ash into the atmosphere reaching up to 20,000’ with the noise being heard up to 100 miles away.  The August 1883 eruptions caused 100’ tsunamis and boats rocked in South Africa, thousands of miles away because of them. The sound of the explosions could be heard in Australia more than 2,000 miles away and in Mauritius, nearly 3,000 miles away. It shot more than 20 cubic kilometers of ash and toxic gasses, such as sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, 50 miles up into the stratosphere and spread it all over the planet, causing a five-year global acid rain. The sky was blood red and the moon was blue for years after the explosion and artists painted red sunsets in Sweden and Europe. The amount of ash that fell back to the earth covered about one million square kilometers drastically altering the ocean floor in the area and increasing the landmass of several islands in the area.   

   

In 1888, five years after the event, everything was back to normal. The planet cleaned the air, cleaned the ocean, normalized the temperatures, normalized the weather, and today that area is what some tourists call a pristine environment.   

   

Steve, I try to be rational about this global warming thing, but if I see the amount of soot, acid and pollution Saddam Hussein launched into the atmosphere after setting those oil fields on fire in the nineties, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, all the other natural events spewing millions of tons of toxic material into the air; an unknown amount of submarine fissures spewing toxic magma into the oceans, massive forest fires – and the planet deals with it, as it has been for millions of years, then it’s hard to swallow the propaganda of global warming as anything but a hoax to blackmail us into parting with very large sums of money. I mean, where have you seen a more blatant fraud than the carbon-offset scheme? Or, the Kyoto treaty?  

   

I say again, I love the planet as you do, and I am an activist for responsible stewardship of resources and life, but this is a swindle, my friend. You wouldn’t part with five bucks if someone proposed this as a business deal to you. You’d probably call the cops.  

   

One more thing. If they say that the temperatures would rise by 1 or 2 deg, how would they measure that? Think about it. I pay tennis with friends about 10 miles from where I live. We like to play at 7 AM in the morning. Some mornings in the winter, the temperature difference is more than 18 degrees between the house and the tennis courts. Never, ever in the 10 years I’ve been playing there several times per week, has the temperature been the same at the house and at the courts. Ten miles? I can go 20 miles west and 1,000’ down to the coast and the temperature would be vastly different again. On the same day. If the wind blows (you’ve heard of the Santa Ana’s, I’m sure) the entire region’s temperature is hay-wire. Where do they measure and when do they measure to come up with a definite 1 deg difference? Satellites? Weather stations? Balloons? How did they do it 1,000 years ago which is the time-frame some fraudsters use to determine the danger we’re in?  

   

Nah. I’d stay with reason, thank you. I know mud when I see mud. This aint mud.   

   

Nico  

   

   

   

   

   

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve (at) Col-East

 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:40 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Analyzer  

  

     

I believe in the hoax.   

    

I find the hostility toward the notion that we might be affecting the environment in a dramatic fashion very odd. Agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, heating and cooling, recreation all contribute. 10,000 years of stable CO2 levels, begin a sharp rise at the dawn of the industrial age. The rate of change is increasing dramatically as billions more people adopt our style of living. The fact that the amount of these gases in the atmosphere influence the temperature cannot seriously be in dispute.   

    

   

    

Oil production has likely peaked. Consumption continues to rise. I guess I'm naive(I still believe in Santa Claus), but this doesn't seem sustainable.   

    

   

    

I love big old radials, belching steam locomotives, and big blocks. But if day to day I can make a little difference, I'll try.  

    

   

    

   

    

Green of Peak..... I like that.....  

    

   

    

Steve  

    

   

    

   

    

---

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Yes, Nico, you worded this far better than I could and we are of the 

same opinion.



/John



Moe - Ross Racing Pistons wrote:

[quote]

 Nico,



 Thanks for this.



 Moe



 N680RR



 680F(p)



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------



 *From:* owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *nico css

 *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:03 PM

 *To:* commander-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* environment global warming



 Steve,



 I don’t disagree with the notion that we ought to be conservators of 

 the environment. I pick up behind me when I accidentally litter, clean 

 up where we picnic and don’t waste water, prefer a cleaner running 

 engine than one that spews dirt into the air and so on. I firmly 

 believe that no reasonable person would disagree that cleaning up when 

 we are done or show care when we deal with what we do to the 

 environment is a good and responsible thing to do. But to assume that 

 we are influencing the globe’s temperature is just not rational. If 

 you claim to be naïve and believe in Santa Claus, I’ll join you if it 

 means being responsible custodians of the environment. But to believe 

 that we can, are able, to affect climate change, is just not rational.



 Take the Krakatoa eruptions for instance: Years before the 1883 

 eruption, the volcano regularly spewed ash into the atmosphere 

 reaching up to 20,000’ with the noise being heard up to 100 miles 

 away. The August 1883 eruptions caused 100’ tsunamis and boats rocked 

 in South Africa, thousands of miles away because of them. The sound of 

 the explosions could be heard in Australia more than 2,000 miles away 

 and in Mauritius, nearly 3,000 miles away. It shot more than 20 cubic 

 kilometers of ash and toxic gasses, such as sulfur dioxide and 

 sulfuric acid, 50 miles up into the stratosphere and spread it all 

 over the planet, causing a five-year global acid rain. The sky was 

 blood red and the moon was blue for years after the explosion and 

 artists painted red sunsets in Sweden and Europe. The amount of ash 

 that fell back to the earth covered about one million square 

 kilometers drastically altering the ocean floor in the area and 

 increasing the landmass of several islands in the area.



 In 1888, five years after the event, everything was back to normal. 

 The planet cleaned the air, cleaned the ocean, normalized the 

 temperatures, normalized the weather, and today that area is what some 

 tourists call a pristine environment.



 Steve, I try to be rational about this global warming thing, but if I 

 see the amount of soot, acid and pollution Saddam Hussein launched 

 into the atmosphere after setting those oil fields on fire in the 

 nineties, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, all the other natural events 

 spewing millions of tons of toxic material into the air; an unknown 

 amount of submarine fissures spewing toxic magma into the oceans, 

 massive forest fires – and the planet deals with it, as it has been 

 for millions of years, then it’s hard to swallow the propaganda of 

 global warming as anything but a hoax to blackmail us into parting 

 with very large sums of money. I mean, where have you seen a more 

 blatant fraud than the carbon-offset scheme? Or, the Kyoto treaty?



 I say again, I love the planet as you do, and I am an activist for 

 responsible stewardship of resources and life, but this is a swindle, 

 my friend. You wouldn’t part with five bucks if someone proposed this 

 as a business deal to you. You’d probably call the cops.



 One more thing. If they say that the temperatures would rise by 1 or 2 

 deg, how would they measure that? Think about it. I pay tennis with 

 friends about 10 miles from where I live. We like to play at 7 AM in 

 the morning. Some mornings in the winter, the temperature difference 

 is more than 18 degrees between the house and the tennis courts. 

 Never, ever in the 10 years I’ve been playing there several times per 

 week, has the temperature been the same at the house and at the 

 courts. Ten miles? I can go 20 miles west and 1,000’ down to the coast 

 and the temperature would be vastly different again. On the same day. 

 If the wind blows (you’ve heard of the Santa Ana’s, I’m sure) the 

 entire region’s temperature is hay-wire. Where do they measure and 

 when do they measure to come up with a definite 1 deg difference? 

 Satellites? Weather stations? Balloons? How did they do it 1,000 years 

 ago which is the time-frame some fraudsters use to determine the 

 danger we’re in?



 Nah. I’d stay with reason, thank you. I know mud when I see mud. This 

 aint mud.



 Nico



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------



 *From:* owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of 

 *Steve (at) Col-East

 *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:40 PM

 *To:* commander-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* Re: Engine Analyzer



 I believe in the hoax.



 I find the hostility toward the notion that we might be affecting the 

 environment in a dramatic fashion very odd. Agriculture, 

 manufacturing, transportation, heating and cooling, recreation all 

 contribute. 10,000 years of stable CO2 levels, begin a sharp rise at 

 the dawn of the industrial age. The rate of change is increasing 

 dramatically as billions more people adopt our style of living. The 

 fact that the amount of these gases in the atmosphere influence the 

 temperature cannot seriously be in dispute.



 Oil production has likely peaked. Consumption continues to rise. I 

 guess I'm naive(I still believe in Santa Claus), but this doesn't seem 

 sustainable.



 I love big old radials, belching steam locomotives, and big blocks. 

 But if day to day I can make a little difference, I'll try.



 Green of Peak..... I like that.....



 Steve



 ---

bowing74(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: environment global warming

"Toyota Pious"

I like that.  May I use it?

bilbo



--

steve2(at)sover.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Even I hate the noxious clouds of smug they produce.

---

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: environment global warming

See.....Steve knows where I got it .



Steve (at) Col-East wrote:

[quote] 

 <steve2(at)sover.net>



 Even I hate the noxious clouds of smug they produce.

 ---

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Sure, I got it from an episode of South Park.



Bill Bow wrote:

[quote] 



 "Toyota Pious"

 I like that.  May I use it?

 bilbo



 --

yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: environment global warming

AMEN!!  I just read where the head of NASA (they own the satellites that measure temp, ocean levels etc) said in a press release that the is simply no proof of "global warning".  In fact, in a related piece , the recorded mid level temps have fallen .036 deg in the last 20 years!!  That may be why we hear less about "global warming" and more the phrase "Global climate change??    JB

 

 

 --

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Ah! At last. Something from the list.   

   

I posted some messages this week and for some reason they just disappeared into never land. I’ll see if this one is posted.  

   

Nico  

   

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of yourtcfg(at)aol.com

 Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:52 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Commander-List: environment global warming  

  

   

AMEN!!  I just read where the head of NASA (they own the satellites that measure temp, ocean levels etc) said in a press release that the is simply no proof of "global warning".  In fact, in a related piece , the recorded mid level temps have fallen .036 deg in the last 20 years!!  That may be why we hear less about "global warming" and more the phrase "Global climate change??    JB

 

 

 --

steve2(at)sover.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: environment global warming

Oh for Pete's sake. You can argue the causes of  'global warming', and whether we have any responsibility, but to argue it isn't  happening? I did a search for NASA global warming report, and the only place the  earth isn't warming is on Fox News. The NASA chief himself was quoted as saying,  "I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that  it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He went on to  speculate whether or not we should do anything about it. Griffin is of course a  Bush appointee.

  

 The chief NASA climatologist is sounding all the  alarms he can about the warming trend and the fact that the administration is  doing all they can to suppress the data, and restrict the interaction of  government scientists with the public.

  

 Glaciers are dissappearing of mountains  all over the world. For the first time in history the Northwest Passage is open  to navigation. 19 of the twentiest warmest years on record have been since  1980.

  

 Back to stacking wood......

 [quote]   ---

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Steve,



I'm not saying the globe isn't warming. I'm kinda glad, actually, 

because it means we're not in an ice age. Did you know that Greenland 

was named Greenland because when it was discovered, it was GREEN? As in, 

no ice.



Climate ebbs & flows. Again, I try to leave as few footprints as 

possible....but even the NASA chief climatologist isn't sold on the 

notion that we need to jump on the "fix it!" bandwagon. Of course, solid 

science rarely intrudes on the debate. Everyone is quick to point out, 

"he's a BUSH APPOINTEE! He must be EVIL! Forget the 9 years of college & 

multiple degrees!" So if he was a Gore appointee, he'd be screaming 

bloody murder, based on the same report?



Science doesn't depend on "consensus" or "debate". Science is about 

building a PROVABLE hypothesis. Nobody has done that yet. Why? Climate 

modeling is not bias-proof science. Modeling the future is entirely 

dependent on subjective experiences from today and yesterday.



As far as the media, they tend to focus ONLY on the negative, and that 

bothers me. Yes, temperatures are warming......what about the GOOD news 

that goes with that? Reforestation will happen more quickly. Areas 

previously unsuitable for agriculture will be able to support farming. 

Rainforests may actually expand. Check the hurricane reports for the 

last 75 years? There are more storms, they apparently are more severe, 

but it's all part of the normal cycle. And from '75 - 95, they were all 

extremely tame.....perhaps there were no fossil fuels being burned for 

those 2 decades: http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro129.htm



I'm not ripping your opinion. I'm just not picking sides until I see a 

demonstrated provable hypothesis. And even if I'm on the wrong side, I 

still think that all we can do is screw things up for us, and when we're 

gone, the world will continue on its merry way, none the worse for the wear.



/J



Steve (at) Col-East wrote:

[quote] Oh for Pete's sake. You can argue the causes of 'global warming', and 

 whether we have any responsibility, but to argue it isn't happening? I 

 did a search for NASA global warming report, and the only place the 

 earth isn't warming is on Fox News. The NASA chief himself was quoted 

 as saying, "I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. 

 I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must 

 wrestle with." He went on to speculate whether or not we should do 

 anything about it. Griffin is of course a Bush appointee.

  

 The chief NASA climatologist is sounding all the alarms he can about 

 the warming trend and the fact that the administration is doing all 

 they can to suppress the data, and restrict the interaction of 

 government scientists with the public.

  

 Glaciers are dissappearing of mountains all over the world. For the 

 first time in history the Northwest Passage is open to navigation. 19 

 of the twentiest warmest years on record have been since 1980.

  

 Back to stacking wood......



     ---

bowing74(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: environment global warming

“Glaciers are dissappearing of mountains all over the world”  

   

As the one who picks the “fly specks (fecal matter) out of the pepper”, I’d like to point out that the glaciers are actually in the valley between the mountains and not on the mountains themselves.<G>  

Lighten up gents, the Asians are not going to do anything to help this and they are much bigger and polutier(my word).  

bilbo  

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve (at) Col-East

 Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:52 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Commander-List: environment global warming  

  

     

Oh for Pete's sake. You can argue the causes of 'global warming', and whether we have any responsibility, but to argue it isn't happening? I did a search for NASA global warming report, and the only place the earth isn't warming is on Fox News. The NASA chief himself was quoted as saying, "I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He went on to speculate whether or not we should do anything about it. Griffin is of course a Bush appointee.  

    

   

    

The chief NASA climatologist is sounding all the alarms he can about the warming trend and the fact that the administration is doing all they can to suppress the data, and restrict the interaction of government scientists with the public.  

    

   

    

Glaciers are dissappearing of mountains all over the world. For the first time in history the Northwest  Passage is open to navigation. 19 of the twentiest warmest years on record have been since 1980.  

    

   

    

Back to stacking wood......  

  [quote]    

---

deneals(at)deneals.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: environment global warming

--

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: environment global warming

Deaneal,



Thanks for the clarification, and I stand corrected....I should know 

better than to jump into this with limited knowledge of some subjects .



/J



Deneal Schilmeister wrote:

[quote]

 --

n395v

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: Re: environment global warming

 	  Quote: 	
		  I find the hostility toward the notion that we might be affecting the 

environment in a dramatic fashion very odd. 	




I do not think you are seeing hostility towards the "notion" that we are affecting the environment.



What you see hostility towards are the egg sucking liberals who are attempting to use this as a wedge issue and blaming George Bush for everything that is wrong with the environment. Especially Al Gore whos home uses more BTUs per year than some small cities.



You are seeing hostility towards the hypoctisy of the far left.



Clearly the environment is changing and clearly humans habits are impacting the environment.



The question is as John alluded to are we impacting it at a statistically significant rate, ie if all humans were gone tomorrow what and how quickly would things change.



I doubt Bush is hiding a smoking gun of info that says we are causing the end of the world. That is just more liberal BS and sourgrapes from an egghead who had his grant cancelled.



The truth about scientific data to date is the data is conflicting and in disagreement, we really do not know how to interpret the data, The contribution of mankind to the trends is miniscule compared to natural forces so determining its true impact is beyond the capability of our analytic  capabilities.



The entire northern North American continent was once under ice and it is now gone. The Southern half was under an ocean. All this changed long before the internal combustion revolution and pampers. Now how can Al Gore possibly blame that on us or George Bush?



In any event as you noted we can destroy our economy and way of life by going overboard on protecting the environment and it matters naught because the billions in 3rd world countries are going to consume the earth within the next hundred years. But I suppose that is Bushs fault also. Maybe Barack or Hilary will save us, especially if they appoint Pelosi and Boxer to important environmental positions.

_________________
Milt

jtaddington(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: environment global warming

Milt, I like your way of telling it like it is. I whole heartedly agree. The

news media is doing there best to do like the North Koreans did to our guys

in there POW camps, it's called brain washing.

Jim Addington



--

kerry(at)kvelectric.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: environment global warming

All one needs to do to get a clear understanding of who is concerned about

the environment and who isn't, who is telling the truth as they know it to

be and who is running a scam is to look at the homes the people built to

live in.



KV Electric, INC. 

Kerry Johnson, President 

1139 North 1210 West 

St. George, UT 84770 

(435) 673-4696 Office 

(435) 673-4731 Fax 



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum