On Mar 6, 12:10 am, Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:

Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.

IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.

Sure, if you ignore Physics and rely on blind correlation instead.

You seem to under appreciate the distinction between 'the'
and 'a'. Changes in atmospheric composition must be a
cause of changes in global temperature. That is basic
Physics. To claim there can be no other causes is absurd
to the point that it suggests an effort to avoid meaningful
discussion.

Other factors forcing temperatures down, at the same time that
an increase in Greenhouse gases is forcing it up, are well-
established--see Global dimming.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 6, 7:40 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Will"
wrote:
What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.

This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.

I'm still trying to figure out how that methane contributes to the CO2
in the atmosphere. Does OP go about sparking cattle farts?

Well, I'm a little puzzled by that too -- my best guess is that CO2 and
methane are probably released simultaneously when a cow farts, and the OP is a
little confused about the exact mechanism.

My point was that it's not accurate to regard livestock emissions as being
unrelated to human activity -- surely there wouldn't be nearly as many bovines
on the planet were it not for human agriculture.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 6, 1:58 pm, wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:10 am, Just Wondering wrote:

wrote:

Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.

IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.

Sure, if you ignore Physics and rely on blind correlation instead.

You seem to under appreciate the distinction between 'the'
and 'a'. Changes in atmospheric composition must be a
cause of changes in global temperature. That is basic
Physics. To claim there can be no other causes is absurd
to the point that it suggests an effort to avoid meaningful
discussion.

That's true only if, by 'global temperature', you include geothermal
energy (that's probably where your often repeated 'conservation of
energy' non-sequitur came from). To his credit, even Al Gore doesn't
take the argument to that level of absurdity (although it wouldn't
surprise me if that was the Ace up his sleeve). In the context of the
controversy of global warming (man's contribution to the causes of
*atmospheric* warming), one must acknowledge that periods of increased
volcanic activity and the resulting increase in atmospheric greenhouse
gases - the likes of which would put our best efforts to pollute to
shame - are neither the result of human activity, nor the result of
atmospheric composition. Would you agree?

And I'm confused as to why you dismiss increased solar output as a
contributor to the observed increase in global temps. (Actually, I'm
not confused by your dismissal, at all. I'm just trying to keep the
discussion lively)

Other factors forcing temperatures down, at the same time that
an increase in Greenhouse gases is forcing it up, are well-
established--see Global dimming.

--

FF

On Mar 7, 9:25 am, wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:58 pm, wrote:



On Mar 6, 12:10 am, Just Wondering wrote:

wrote:

Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.

IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.

Sure, if you ignore Physics and rely on blind correlation instead.

You seem to under appreciate the distinction between 'the'
and 'a'. Changes in atmospheric composition must be a
cause of changes in global temperature. That is basic
Physics. To claim there can be no other causes is absurd
to the point that it suggests an effort to avoid meaningful
discussion.

That's true only if, by 'global temperature', you include geothermal
energy (that's probably where your often repeated 'conservation of
energy' non-sequitur came from). To his credit, even Al Gore doesn't
take the argument to that level of absurdity (although it wouldn't
surprise me if that was the Ace up his sleeve).

Sadly, you canno tmake that same claim.

In the context of the
controversy of global warming (man's contribution to the causes of
*atmospheric* warming), one must acknowledge that periods of increased
volcanic activity and the resulting increase in atmospheric greenhouse
gases - the likes of which would put our best efforts to pollute to
shame - are neither the result of human activity, nor the result of
atmospheric composition. Would you agree?

And I'm confused as to why you dismiss increased solar output as a
contributor to the observed increase in global temps. (Actually, I'm
not confused by your dismissal, at all. I'm just trying to keep the
discussion lively)

It is apparent that you came late to this discussion, and therefor do
not understand some of what I say. There are two valid ways to
inform yourself that are immediately obvious. The first, would be
to review the thread. The other would be to ask me. That you
eschew either method and instead chose the invalid approach
of assuming I am a crackpot leads me to certainly conclusions
about yourself that I prefer to not articulate in order to reduce the
liveliness of the discussion.

I use the addmitedly ill-defined term 'global temperature' in much
the same way as everyone else, meaning some sort of ground
level 'average' air temperature.

I did refer to radioactive decay and tidal friction when pointing out
the role of the conservation of energy, and lest you be confused,
I did so only for the sake of completeness and do not contend that
either plays a role in short-term climate change though either or
both may have dominated long-term change at other times.

Conservation of energy requires that the temperature of a body
change whenever the energy absorbed by that body plus the
energy generated within does not equal the energy emitted
by it.

Regarding the present effects of volcanism on climate change:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at
the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total
global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. T
his is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic)
CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150
times."

and, courtesy of the minions of the Bush administration who
are routinely accused of 'suppressing' real science:

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=5271302

"Volcanic CO{sub 2} presently represents only 0.22% of anthropogenic
emissions but may have contributed to significant greenhouse` effects
at times in Earth history"

Would you agree that volcanic eruptions in the distant past are
non-sequitur as they have no effect on future short-term climate
changes?

I dismiss increased solar irradiance as a factor in the recent global
warming on _Mars_ because solar irradiance has decreased over the
three Martian years during which that temperature increase has been
observed. Pleas try to maintain an awareness of what planet you
are on.

I've also noted that studies of variation in solar irradiance over
more than
one solar cycle establish an upper limit on any increase that
corresponds
to a a forcing of about 0.1 W/sqm, about one quarter of the forcing
attributed to increasing CO2 over the same period of time.


Other factors forcing temperatures down, at the same time that
an increase in Greenhouse gases is forcing it up, are well-
established--see Global dimming.


FF

On Mar 6, 3:07 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 6, 7:40 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Will"
wrote:
What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.

This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.

I'm still trying to figure out how that methane contributes to the CO2
in the atmosphere. Does OP go about sparking cattle farts?

Well, I'm a little puzzled by that too -- my best guess is that CO2 and
methane are probably released simultaneously when a cow farts, and the OP is a
little confused about the exact mechanism.

Evidently methane in the atmosphere decomposes to CO2 and water.
OP was just being succint.


My point was that it's not accurate to regard livestock emissions as being
unrelated to human activity -- surely there wouldn't be nearly as many bovines
on the planet were it not for human agriculture.

Yes it reminds me of a cartoon of someone who
looked like Chief Dan George standing on a cliff i
overlooking a herd of bison and saying to his young
son, "Someday these buffalo will all be gone. The
white man will replace them with cattle that will
belch a lot and cause global warming."


It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

The court case that prompted you to put that in your .sig was
remarkable only in that the defendant was able to get his
case to the USSC. The (ab)use of eminent domain to transfer
property from one private party to another has been settled law
for centuries. Being a liberal, I would have liked it if the BOR
had always been interpreted so as to put an end to the practice
on our side of the pond but I'm pretty sure it was never so.

--

FF

On Feb 27, 11:32 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , D Smith wrote:
Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.


And global cooling has been happening too. Otherwise there would have
been a much greater temperature rise over the last 40 years. As it
is,
the warming effect have been negating the cooling effect and may soon
win out.

The particulates responsible for global cooling (actually for global
dimming that in turn causes global cooling) have a much shorter
lifetime in the atmosphere than do green house gases.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...5338&linkid=mp

When were we first alerted to global warming?

The study of global warming and the greenhouse effect
goes back more than 180 years. But, the international
scientific consensus pointing to humans as a major
cause of global warming was affirmed in 1985 when a
body leading environment and climate scientists formally
recommended a treaty to address global warming.

The concept of the earth's atmosphere acting as a heat
trap was first proposed by French mathematician and
physicist Joseph Fourier in 1824, during the early years
of the Industrial Revolution.

In 1896, Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, one
of the founders of the science of physical chemistry, first
put forward the idea that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
from human activities could raise the earth's temperature.

Six decades later, in 1957, American geophysicist Roger
Revelle coauthored a paper with Hans Seuss finding that
much of the carbon dioxide pollution emitted to the atmosphere
was not absorbed by the oceans as some scientists had argued
- leaving more in the atmosphere, which would eventually warm
the earth.

At about the same time, Charles Keeling set up a long-term
carbon dioxide monitoring site in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. It first
documented the slow but inexorable rise in atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations in response to the emissions from burning
fossil fuels and tropical forests.

[I first saw the Mauna Loa data cited to predict global
warming in the early 1970s--Natural History magazine
I think, FF]

Then, in 1985, a conference sponsored by the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), and the International Council of Scientific
Unions forged a consensus scientific view warning that some
future warming was inevitable due to past emissions. The
conference recommended consideration of an international treaty
to address global warming.

See also:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/global-cooling/

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

I presume you are not confusing these issue with 'nuclear winter',
though wouldn't be so generous with some others.

I do remember a movie or two and some other touchy-feely stuff
predicting another ice age.

--

FF

On Mar 1, 12:03 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
political, not scientific.

No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.

Nonsense, absolute and utter nonsense. If Kyoto were about reducing CO2
emissions, it would have placed restrictions on India and China as well.



In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
peeing in it.

OK, if that's so -- then why does Kyoto allow China and India to keep peeing
in the pool?

Like I said -- political basis, not scientific.


How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
pool and how much would it allow an American?

Got any numbers?

On Feb 28, 9:56 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
political, not scientific.

No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single

In this case, the "people concerned about increasing carbon dioxide" are principally
political hacks and other bottom-feeding scoundrels with minimal understanding
of actual science. This does not in any way speak to whether or not GW is
a real problem or not. But, Kyoto is a political cesspool, nothing more.

country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.

In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
peeing in it.

Then why does Kyoto punish the people who are barely in the pool and who never
pee in it while requiring little or nothing from those using the pool as their
outhouse?

Kyoto doesn't punish anybody.

A quarter of the pee in the pool comes from North America.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:

How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
pool and how much would it allow an American?

Got any numbers?

The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
*does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.

Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
the United States?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
pool and how much would it allow an American?

Got any numbers?

The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
*does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.

Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
the United States?


There is a lot less of it.

That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
pool and how much would it allow an American?

Got any numbers?

The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
*does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.

Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
the United States?


There is a lot less of it.

Got any numbers?

That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.

All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.

Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
pool and how much would it allow an American?

Got any numbers?

The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
*does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.

Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
the United States?

There is a lot less of it.

Got any numbers?

That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.

All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.

Neither are we.

I agree that they should be. But it is worthwhile to note
that if they were under exactly the same restrictions, they
could STILL continue to increase their emissions without
violating those restrictions.

It would be like imposing a speed limit of 55 mph for bulldozers,
same as for cars.


Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.


Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.

Neither are we.

Yes, but that's only because we haven't signed and ratified it. If we had, we
would be.

[snip]

Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.

Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?

I just *gave* you the evidence: Kyoto exempts India, China, and other
developing nations from the CO2 restrictions that it imposes on western
industrial democracies.

Not *my* fault you're willfully blind.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 19, 4:01 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
All the more reason why they should be under the same restrictions as the
western industrial democracies. But they're not. Neither is India.

Neither are we.

Yes, but that's only because we haven't signed and
ratified it. If we had, we
would be.

Yes. We'd be restricted to releasing no more than several
times the CO2 emitted by China and India combined, though
5.2% less than we did in 2000.

Objecting to that is rather like objecting that a 55 mph
speed limit for automobiles is unfair when there is no
speed limit for bulldozers.


[snip]
Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.

Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?

I just *gave* you the evidence: Kyoto exempts India, China, and other
developing nations from the CO2 restrictions that it imposes on western
industrial democracies.

Not *my* fault you're willfully blind.


The evidence supports the idea that the motivation
for the treaty is EXACTLY what the treaty states.
That makes sense, even if the world is wrong on
the science.

Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
own economies for no particular reason at all.

Does THAT make sense?

--

FF

wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.


Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?


Copy, paste, and watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831

In article . com,
says...
On Mar 19, 12:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
How much would Kyoto allow a Chinese to pee in the
pool and how much would it allow an American?

Got any numbers?

The point is that Kyoto places *no* restrictions on China and India, and
*does* place restrictions on the western industrial democracies.

Why is that? Is CO2 emitted by China somehow less harmful than CO2 emitted by
the United States?


There is a lot less of it.

That looks to change in a couple of decades at most.

According to a report issued by the International Energy Agency in
November, it looks like China is poised to take the lead in 2009 -
about ten years ahead of 'schedule'. But everybody knows their pee
is not as icky because they don't have a Republican at the helm.

In article .com, wrote:

Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
own economies for no particular reason at all.

Does THAT make sense?

Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
have been, yes, it does make sense.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 20, 12:28 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
own economies for no particular reason at all.

Does THAT make sense?

Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
have been, yes, it does make sense.


So the Western Democracies signed on to gut
their economies, knowing that no good would come
of it?

THAT makes sense?

Have you found any data on how much volcanic CO2 has
really been released over th elast 50 years?

Have you found any data that says the sun really did
grow brighter in the last five years?

What color is the Kool-Aid you've been drinking?

--

FF

On Mar 20, 9:06 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:28 pm, (DougMiller) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
own economies for no particular reason at all.

Does THAT make sense?

Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
have been, yes, it does make sense.

So the Western Democracies signed on to gut
their economies, knowing that no good would come
of it?

THAT makes sense?

You have to understand that in the minds
of the socialists, crippling the industrial
democracies is a *good* thing because it
advances the cause.

Is Tony Blair a socialist?

...
Have you found any data on how much volcanic CO2 has
really been released over the last 50 years?

What's your point here? AFAIK, Kyoto doesn't apply to volcanos...


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:28 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Your idea requires that the Western Democracies
who did sign on to Kyoto to have agree to gut their
own economies for no particular reason at all.

Does THAT make sense?

Realizing that they've been drinking the same kool-aid that you and Al Gore
have been, yes, it does make sense.


So the Western Democracies signed on to gut
their economies, knowing that no good would come
of it?

THAT makes sense?

You have to understand that in the minds of the socialists, crippling the
industrial democracies is a *good* thing because it advances the cause.

Have you found any data on how much volcanic CO2 has
really been released over th elast 50 years?

What's your point here? AFAIK, Kyoto doesn't apply to volcanos...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.

Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?

Copy, paste, and watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831

I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
economies of the western democracies.

--

FF

wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

wrote:

On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.

Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?

Copy, paste, and watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831


I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
economies of the western democracies.


If you watched it, you were pointed to sources of scientific evidence
debunking the man-made GL scare, and to sources of evidence that the
scare is politically, not scientifically, motivated.

On Mar 22, 6:14 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

wrote:

On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.

Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?

Copy, paste, and watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831

I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
economies of the western democracies.

If you watched it, you were pointed to sources of scientific evidence
debunking the man-made GL scare, and to sources of evidence that the
scare is politically, not scientifically, motivated.

I did watch it and do not recall seeing any references
to anything indicating a motive to gut the economies of
the western democracies.

I do recall an unsupported claim about Margaret Thatcher,
I do not think she is one of Mr Miller's alleged socialists,
or that she engaged in a conspiracy to gut the economies
of the western democracies.

--

FF

in 1352090 20070322 181427 Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

wrote:

On Mar 19, 12:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Kyoto is at bottom a politically-motivated attempt to gut the economies of the
western industrial democracies.

Do you have any evidence to support that nonsense?

Copy, paste, and watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831


I didn't seen any evidence of a motive to gut the
economies of the western democracies.


If you watched it, you were pointed to sources of scientific evidence
debunking the man-made GL scare, and to sources of evidence that the
scare is politically, not scientifically, motivated.

This thread has finally descended into total farce.

Bob Martin wrote:

This thread has finally descended into total farce.

The idea of ecological disaster resulting from man-made GW is a total farce.

On Mar 23, 6:35 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:
This thread has finally descended into total farce.

The idea of ecological disaster resulting from man-made GW is a total farce.

The idea that Margaret Thatcher popularized concern over
anthropogenic global warming because of a coal miners'
strike is beyond farcical.

--

FF