http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

Last summer in Central Tx was murder. We had something like 67 days
continuously over 100 degrees. Of course, hottest in recorded history. We're
getting break this year due to the rain I think. Last year we had a record
breaking drought too.

notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

Summer here in eastern TN has been hot as hell. Way above average. But
then again this is following the coldest winter in many many years and
there wasn't much of a spring. It seemed to go directly from winter to
summer. I missed those couple months of practically no heating or
cooling bills, went right from heating to A/C. If it stayed warmer all
year round I could handle it, or cooler year round, but not both extremes.

"Tony" wrote in message
...
notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

Summer here in eastern TN has been hot as hell. Way above average. But
then again this is following the coldest winter in many many years and
there wasn't much of a spring. It seemed to go directly from winter to
summer. I missed those couple months of practically no heating or cooling
bills, went right from heating to A/C. If it stayed warmer all year round
I could handle it, or cooler year round, but not both extremes.

Same here. Freakish weather. It snowed hard in Victoria TX. It never does
that. They liked it though.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:13:38 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

....and lows in CA. It hasn't been *that* bad here in AL, though this is about
the time of year it goes triple (and today it's on the schedule - 95F now and
T-Boomers in the menu for later).

On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.



I see cynicism isn't your stong suit. Did you read the article?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

On 7/30/2010 11:57 AM JimT spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.

I see cynicism isn't your stong suit. Did you read the article?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Whoops. Guess I'm too used to responding to AGW deniers. Will read next
time before posting.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 7/30/2010 11:57 AM JimT spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend
is supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.

I see cynicism isn't your stong suit. Did you read the article?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Whoops. Guess I'm too used to responding to AGW deniers. Will read next
time before posting.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

no problem.

JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

It's gonna get warmer before it gets colder. Everything else is bull****.

--
LSMFT

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin--

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:50:18 -0400, LSMFT wrote:

JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

It's gonna get warmer before it gets colder. Everything else is bull****.

For a couple of weeks. Then it'll reverse. Yup!

"JimT" wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:51:12 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JimT" wrote in message
tnet...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?


I'm not claiming to be one of the sane people-- but I just thought of
2--
1. blood
2. money

How'd I do?

Jim

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"JimT" wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had
at least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's
not a sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

In the U.S., noxious emissions have been going down since the early 70's.
The air is cleaner than perhaps it ever has been, certainly better than 1850
in London.


Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory
is never fully agreed upon?

Los Angeles is one. I can't think of another.

On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD


I was raised in El Paso next to the Asarco smelter. Would wake up in the
morning with the taste of sulfur.

The history of the planet's "climate cycles" is preserved in ice cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

They are hard to argue with but we do anyway. :-)

On 7/30/2010 11:07 PM, JimT wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never
fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD


I was raised in El Paso next to the Asarco smelter. Would wake up in the
morning with the taste of sulfur.

The history of the planet's "climate cycles" is preserved in ice cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

They are hard to argue with but we do anyway. :-)



Every time I try to argue with one, all I get is an icy stare.

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 11:07 PM, JimT wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not
a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never
fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD


I was raised in El Paso next to the Asarco smelter. Would wake up in the
morning with the taste of sulfur.

The history of the planet's "climate cycles" is preserved in ice cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

They are hard to argue with but we do anyway. :-)



Every time I try to argue with one, all I get is an icy stare.

TDD

It's the cold hard facts

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise.


There *are* people on one side of the GW debate who think otherwise, but
they don't realize how absurd they sound. They've been ordered to believe
some funny ****. Example: Retrofitting coal-burning electric generating
facilities with the latest & cleanest technology will have disastrous
effects on the price of electricity, and perhaps even put some utilities
right out of business. Nonsense.

Then there are individuals who are literally broken, and respond to my
question with stuff that does not actually answer the question. Heybub, for
instance: "In the U.S., noxious emissions have been going down since the
early 70's. The air is cleaner than perhaps it ever has been, certainly
better than 1850 in London."

He thought that was the right answer, but clearly it's not.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've
had at least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and
there's not a sane person on the planet who disagrees with these
reasons. Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should
not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never
fully agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise.


There *are* people on one side of the GW debate who think otherwise,
but they don't realize how absurd they sound. They've been ordered to
believe some funny ****. Example: Retrofitting coal-burning electric
generating facilities with the latest & cleanest technology will have
disastrous effects on the price of electricity, and perhaps even put
some utilities right out of business. Nonsense.

Then there are individuals who are literally broken, and respond to my
question with stuff that does not actually answer the question.
Heybub, for instance: "In the U.S., noxious emissions have been
going down since the early 70's. The air is cleaner than perhaps it
ever has been, certainly better than 1850 in London."

He thought that was the right answer, but clearly it's not.

Oh. Sorry. I thought you could connect the dots.

You said: "Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at least one or two
OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a sane person on the
planet who disagrees with these reasons." And asked if anybody could name
them.

I'll take a stab:

1. Because we can.
2. Because, for some, it's fun.
3. Because bureaucrats have to have some enforceable regulations to give
purpose to their otherwise meaningless lives.
4. Because sadists are in charge.
5. Because they "feel our pain"
6. Because those in government do not believe Calvin Coolidge's observation
"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine
will run into the ditch before they reach you."

In my view, the air's clean enough. Most of the time. And that we've long
since past the point of diminishing returns. There are, however, insane
people on the planet who will disagree.

On 7/31/2010 12:29 PM HeyBub spake thus:

In my view, the air's clean enough. Most of the time. And that we've long
since past the point of diminishing returns. There are, however, insane
people on the planet who will disagree.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in China lately.

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad: they don't count. They're not really people, just
a bunch of yellow peons who are supposed to make all our crap for us.
Who cares about their air?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend
is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had
at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not
a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never
fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise.


There *are* people on one side of the GW debate who think otherwise, but
they don't realize how absurd they sound. They've been ordered to believe
some funny ****. Example: Retrofitting coal-burning electric generating
facilities with the latest & cleanest technology will have disastrous
effects on the price of electricity, and perhaps even put some utilities
right out of business. Nonsense.

The same things were said when clean exhausts were first mandated on cars.
Once lies like that gain traction, they are hard to extinguish.
Misinforming the public makes some people quite wealthy, so it's not likely
to stop any time soon. I think, all the direct threats we face daily tend
to drown out caring about a threat that seems uncertain or possibly terribly
expensive to remediate.

Then there are individuals who are literally broken, and respond to my
question with stuff that does not actually answer the question. Heybub,
for
instance: "In the U.S., noxious emissions have been going down since the
early 70's. The air is cleaner than perhaps it ever has been, certainly
better than 1850 in London."

The river of Usenet is well-stocked with red herrings. In this case he
might have been damning with faint praise as the air of Industrial
Revolution Age London was a noxious witches' brew of particulate matter and
chemicals of all sorts.

Figures from coal production show that smoke pollution increased
dramatically over 300 years to reach a peak in around 1900. Emissions of
sulphur dioxide reached a peak around 1850, with concentrations in the air
of about 900 microgrammes per cubic metre, worse than even today's Third
World mega-cities. However, pollution fell sharply as dirty coal was phased
out and gas and electricity became more popular. Source:

http://cyclingmagazines.co.uk/has-ai...ner-in-london/

Reducing noxious emissions is a great goal, IMHO, until you begin trading
off emissions in dubious ways. Take CFLs. They represent a bit of a
devil's bargain because they are a new and very large vector for mercury to
enter the environment. Doubtless I will be reminded that the evils of CFLs
are allegedly balanced out by the demand reduction, but that hard to
substantiate equation relies heavily on continuing to let mercury fly up the
stacks of powerplants. It assumes a faulty base state to begin with.

When we finally get scrubbers on most powerplant smokestacks, we still will
be left with admittedly trace amounts of mercury in the waste processing
systems everywhere CFLs are used. Some of the most recent studies show
that, for now, mercury from broken bulbs seems to collect mostly in the
bottoms of garbage trucks and the runoff near waste processing plants. For
now.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

Some of the most recent studies show
that, for now, mercury from broken bulbs seems to collect mostly in the
bottoms of garbage trucks and the runoff near waste processing plants.
For
now.

Bobby G.


Well, we don't need to worry about waste processing plants, because those
are always located in really safe places.

Yup.

On 7/30/2010 1:03 PM, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.
The National Weather Service records that this was the hottest July since they
began keeping records. This pertains to average temperature for (1) entire
world - land and sea, (2) ocean temperatures, (3) continental U.S., and (4)
Washington D.C. metro area.

One micro-climate's conditions cannot be used to generalize.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 1:03 PM, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.
The National Weather Service records that this was the hottest July since
they began keeping records. This pertains to average temperature for (1)
entire world - land and sea, (2) ocean temperatures, (3) continental U.S.,
and (4) Washington D.C. metro area.

One micro-climate's conditions cannot be used to generalize.

Peersonally, I think this nit picking over what's "climate" and what's
"weather change" is useless. I was commenting on the fact we are having a
decent summer after last year's blow out. It's not really a commentary on
the AGW issue. The article (Russia) I think speaks for itself. I have little
doubt something is happening to our overall climate and it's getting hotter.
Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way yet.

"JimT" wrote in
net:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"JimT" wrote in
net:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

--
Best regards
Han


Smoking also comes to mind....

On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
tnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. Taxing it is a
simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

" wrote in
news
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
stnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate
and it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced
either way yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output
seems to me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because
another whack and then another whack shouldn't make that much
difference in the pain you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. Taxing
it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way - let the market place take care of
it. Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd prefer. Solar,
wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be managed responsibly.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Jul 31, 1:26*pm, "
wrote:
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
tnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. *HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. *Taxing it is a
simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Do you really think that there's nothing between "unlimited CO2
production"
and "the stone age"? Perhaps you ought to explore other possibilities
just
a little bit. At the very least, you'd sound more sane.

Cindy Hamilton