Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I need some proof that a trace gas has that much effect.

The CO2 in the atmosphere (0.003%) is equivalent to the blood stain
left on a football field after an official received 17 stab wounds
when he made three consecutive bad calls against the home team
(i.e., less than two square feet).

Small traces can have big effect. The tetanus toxin is fatal at
doses at 2.5 nanograms per kilogram of body weight or
0.0000000000025%.

I agree. For the rest of the game, not a single flag was thrown.

On 1/31/2010 5:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

It's not free energy. The emission of light has to compete with the
production of sugar that the grass needs in order to survive and grow.

That makes sense. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up on the idea, though.
Perhaps we could start with a grass which does sugar production
unusually well, and then trade off the growth speed in favor of light
output. Perhaps have it only glow in the /dark/ so as to not waste its
energy during the day...

You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily
amused.

Cost/lumen is zero if it puts light in a useful place and if the cost of
keeping that grass in place and not having it pushed out by some other
variety that doesn't have the metabolic burden of bioluminescence doesn't
increase the cost of upkeep.

Yuppers, although the cost/lumen is the same no matter where the light
goes and regardless of utility. We already put a lot of plants where
they're not /useful/ (other than that someone finds them attractive), so
usefulness isn't necessarily part of the equation.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Put in a different way -- CO2 only absorbs energy in specific
wavelengths
of light (think of it as a filter the CO2 absorbs light in certain
wavelengths and does not affect other wavelengths, letting that energy
pass through with no impact). At some point, the maximum absorption
in those wavelengths is reached and all of the energy in those narrow
bands is being absorbed. Thereafter, it doesn't matter how much
additional CO2 you pump into the system, no additional energy in those
wavebands can be absorbed and CO2 has zero impact in other wavelengths
of light.

Should be true if all light of that wavelength has been absorbed. Don't
know if and when that would happen. There might be very much light of
those wavelengths, more than crrently or in the near future would be
absorbed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

Psst! Concrete is seldom recycled.

BULL ****.

If your eyes were not brown before, they are now.


Whatever. At least they're open.

From the U.S. Geological Survey:

"Aggregates produced from recycled concrete supply roughly 5 percent
of the total aggregates market (more than 2 billion t per year), the
rest being supplied by aggregates from natural sources such as crushed
stone, sand, and gravel."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0181-99/fs-0181-99so.pdf

See also
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...ravel_construc
tion/590400.pdf

Total aggregate usage: 1,120,000 (x 1,000) metric tons (Table 6)
Total recycled asphalt and concrete: 7,210 (x 1,000) metric tons
(Table 14)

PULLEAS!!!!
All that statistic says is that more aggregate is being used for concrete
production than can be supplied by recycled concrete/asphalt. (only ~
0.7% could be supplied by recycling). Seems to me at least. Don't
confuse us with incorrect data/conclusions.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Morris Dovey wrote in news:hk4u48$t8l$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I'm not a biologist (IANAB?) but that _does_ sound fantastic. Movies?
Can you post (or send) a video? With a voice-over to tell about what's
shown? Please...

Someone in our division gave a talk of unpublished work showing time-lapse
movies like that. Two kinds of cells (tissue culture), identical but for
the absence of something fairly essential in one set. Movement of proteins
indicating movement of organelles was seen in the "wild-type" cells, but
not in the "mutants".

I have seen some more like that, but I don't have the references at hand.
I'll keep this in mind for a future posting. The voice-over I can't
promise.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/31/2010 7:32 PM, Han wrote:
Morris wrote in news:hk4u48$t8l$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I'm not a biologist (IANAB?) but that _does_ sound fantastic. Movies?
Can you post (or send) a video? With a voice-over to tell about what's
shown? Please...

Someone in our division gave a talk of unpublished work showing time-lapse
movies like that. Two kinds of cells (tissue culture), identical but for
the absence of something fairly essential in one set. Movement of proteins
indicating movement of organelles was seen in the "wild-type" cells, but
not in the "mutants".

I have seen some more like that, but I don't have the references at hand.
I'll keep this in mind for a future posting. The voice-over I can't
promise.

I didn't mean to impose on anyone and then realized that I was, and I'm
not sure I wasn't out of line. It /does/ sound fantastic and exciting to
be able to see, but I'd like to retract all the pushiness...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

snip

Of course it could
be that the next glaciation will be harsher and colder and with much
greater
glacier advance than the previous one, but that's kind of difficult to
reconcile with the notion of "warming".


Given sufficient melting of glacial ice, the introduction of massive amounts
of freshwater into the oceans (particularly the North Atlantic) could
disrupt warm currents in the northern hemisphere. These warm currents keep
the hemisphere relatively ice free. If the currents go, Northern Europe at
the very least will enter an Ice Age. It's cyclic.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
snip

One of the molecular biologists over at Pioneer Hi-Bred told me that they
(biologists) know how to do the gene splicing to produce bio-luminescence.
Goof ball that I am, I envision street lighting with glowing trees - and
can't help wondering just how much light might be coaxed out of a plant.
(Might I light my living room with a few well-placed ficus plants? If we
produced bio-luminescent grass for safer parks might kids come home with
glow-in-the-dark knees and elbows?)

Japanese produced glow in the dark pigs sometime in the last couple years.
And it all sounds very nice, but where's the Off Switch!?

snip

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 1/31/2010 5:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

It's not free energy. The emission of light has to compete with the
production of sugar that the grass needs in order to survive and grow.

That makes sense. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up on the idea, though.
Perhaps we could start with a grass which does sugar production unusually
well, and then trade off the growth speed in favor of light output.
Perhaps have it only glow in the /dark/ so as to not waste its energy
during the day...

You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily amused.


Here, for your dining and dancing entertainment, is Matsunari-San and the
Luminescent Pigs!

"LDosser" wrote in message
...
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 1/31/2010 5:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

It's not free energy. The emission of light has to compete with the
production of sugar that the grass needs in order to survive and grow.

That makes sense. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up on the idea, though.
Perhaps we could start with a grass which does sugar production unusually
well, and then trade off the growth speed in favor of light output.
Perhaps have it only glow in the /dark/ so as to not waste its energy
during the day...

You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily
amused.

Here, for your dining and dancing entertainment, is Matsunari-San and the
Luminescent Pigs!

url might be useful

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729767

LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

snip

Of course it could
be that the next glaciation will be harsher and colder and with much
greater
glacier advance than the previous one, but that's kind of difficult
to reconcile with the notion of "warming".


Given sufficient melting of glacial ice, the introduction of massive
amounts of freshwater into the oceans (particularly the North
Atlantic) could disrupt warm currents in the northern hemisphere.
These warm currents keep the hemisphere relatively ice free. If the
currents go, Northern Europe at the very least will enter an Ice Age.
It's cyclic.

And that cycle has been ongoing for the 2.5 million years that the northern
hemisphere ice age has been going on. Including the melting of the ice caps
and the fresh water disrupting the warm currents and the whole nine yards.

in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Bob
Martin wrote:

in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article , Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad:

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
WAY down.
How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
of any import.

Please produce said evidence.


Start he

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...-on-co2-amplif
ication-its-less-than-we-thought/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas".

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

snip

Of course it could
be that the next glaciation will be harsher and colder and with much
greater
glacier advance than the previous one, but that's kind of difficult
to reconcile with the notion of "warming".


Given sufficient melting of glacial ice, the introduction of massive
amounts of freshwater into the oceans (particularly the North
Atlantic) could disrupt warm currents in the northern hemisphere.
These warm currents keep the hemisphere relatively ice free. If the
currents go, Northern Europe at the very least will enter an Ice Age.
It's cyclic.

And that cycle has been ongoing for the 2.5 million years that the
northern
hemisphere ice age has been going on. Including the melting of the ice
caps
and the fresh water disrupting the warm currents and the whole nine yards.



Yes, it has. Which is why I said it's cyclic.

On 2/1/2010 1:41 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave wrote:

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
of any import.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas".

That's not what he said ... and you know it, but it does nicely
illustrate a major issue in the debate:

Your dishonesty in attempting to remove context with your quote is in
keeping with the dishonesty the scientific community has provably shown
with its data manipulation.

Shame ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Morris Dovey wrote in news:hk5mks$7d0$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I didn't mean to impose on anyone and then realized that I was, and I'm
not sure I wasn't out of line. It /does/ sound fantastic and exciting to
be able to see, but I'd like to retract all the pushiness...

Curiosity is never pushy. The only bad question is the one you don't ask
(and should have asked). I am keeping your request in mind and just need
the right reference.

The reference LDosser gave above is sort of useful, but doesn't have
movies. It does prove the principle, tough, even in pigs, who are much
harder and more costly to work with than mice.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Feb 1, 9:08*am, Han wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote in news:hk5mks$7d0$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I didn't mean to impose on anyone and then realized that I was, and I'm
not sure I wasn't out of line. It /does/ sound fantastic and exciting to
be able to see, but I'd like to retract all the pushiness...

Curiosity is never pushy. *The only bad question is the one you don't ask
(and should have asked). *I am keeping your request in mind and just need
the right reference. *

The reference LDosser gave above is sort of useful, but doesn't have
movies. *It does prove the principle, tough, even in pigs, who are much
harder and more costly to work with than mice.

.....adn they're usually busy opposing any- and everything the Obama
administration is trying to accomplish.

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Put in a different way -- CO2 only absorbs energy in specific
wavelengths
of light (think of it as a filter the CO2 absorbs light in certain
wavelengths and does not affect other wavelengths, letting that energy
pass through with no impact). At some point, the maximum absorption
in those wavelengths is reached and all of the energy in those narrow
bands is being absorbed. Thereafter, it doesn't matter how much
additional CO2 you pump into the system, no additional energy in those
wavebands can be absorbed and CO2 has zero impact in other wavelengths
of light.

Should be true if all light of that wavelength has been absorbed. Don't
know if and when that would happen. There might be very much light of
those wavelengths, more than crrently or in the near future would be
absorbed.

Measurements indicate that at the current concentration level of CO2
there's already only a small differential--hence, the emphasis on CO2
seems misplaced as far as changes making any significant difference
(either way).

--

On 2/1/2010 10:50 AM, dpb wrote:
Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:
Put in a different way -- CO2 only absorbs energy in specific
wavelengths of light (think of it as a filter the CO2 absorbs light
in certain wavelengths and does not affect other wavelengths, letting
that energy
pass through with no impact). At some point, the maximum absorption
in those wavelengths is reached and all of the energy in those narrow
bands is being absorbed. Thereafter, it doesn't matter how much
additional CO2 you pump into the system, no additional energy in those
wavebands can be absorbed and CO2 has zero impact in other wavelengths
of light.

Should be true if all light of that wavelength has been absorbed.
Don't know if and when that would happen. There might be very much
light of those wavelengths, more than crrently or in the near future
would be absorbed.

Measurements indicate that at the current concentration level of CO2
there's already only a small differential--hence, the emphasis on CO2
seems misplaced as far as changes making any significant difference
(either way).


AccuWeather's Joe *******i made a pretty good argument last week that
the CO2 AGW adherents may be shooting themselves in the foot.

FRIDAY 11 PM LONDON TIME "A THEORY ON WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CLIMATE
MODELS."

http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bast...urope-blog.asp

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 2/1/2010 12:29 AM, LDosser wrote:

You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily
amused.

Here, for your dining and dancing entertainment, is Matsunari-San and
the Luminescent Pigs!

url might be useful

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729767

Confirmed: I _am_ easily amused!

Just remembering a farm neighbor (whose pigs were fixated on becoming
free-range porkers) saying: "If you see one of my pigs, kick it - it's
either loose, trying to get loose, or thinking about getting loose."

By their fluorescence shall ye know them.

More seriously, I can see this as a (possibly) useful research tracking
tool.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Feb 1, 12:20*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 2/1/2010 12:29 AM, LDosser wrote:

You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily
amused.

Here, for your dining and dancing entertainment, is Matsunari-San and
the Luminescent Pigs!

url might be useful

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729767

Confirmed: I _am_ easily amused!

Just remembering a farm neighbor (whose pigs were fixated on becoming
free-range porkers) saying: "If you see one of my pigs, kick it - it's
either loose, trying to get loose, or thinking about getting loose."

By their fluorescence shall ye know them.

More seriously, I can see this as a (possibly) useful research tracking
tool.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Hell, if you develop that pig-luminescense out further, you won't have
to start your BBQ.

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 2/1/2010 12:29 AM, LDosser wrote:

You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily
amused.

Here, for your dining and dancing entertainment, is Matsunari-San
and the Luminescent Pigs!

url might be useful

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729767

Confirmed: I _am_ easily amused!

Just remembering a farm neighbor (whose pigs were fixated on becoming
free-range porkers) saying: "If you see one of my pigs, kick it - it's
either loose, trying to get loose, or thinking about getting loose."

By their fluorescence shall ye know them.

More seriously, I can see this as a (possibly) useful research
tracking tool.

Here's a red fluorescent cat
http://www.conncoll.edu/ccacad/zimme...ooluses7b.html, and a green
one
http://blog.syracuse.com/healthfitne...ed_by_gen.html.
Note that these and the red pigs and the green pigs and here's a news video
which shows fluorescent piglets (note--you have to sit through an ad first).
There are also fluorescent rabbits about--the only photo I can find is
http://www.viz.tamu.edu/faculty/lurleen/air/kac.htm and since it's an
artist's site, even though the guy did own a genetically modified rabbit at
one time the photo may still be doctored.

All of these though are using a fluorescent protein that only lights up
under UV--it's not a luciferin-luciferase reaction.

Light doesn't start fires, unless it is from a very powerful laser.
Luminescence doesn't come close by many factors of 10. AFAIK.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy wrote in news:5153f412-e363-4458-ae70-
:

....adn they're usually busy opposing any- and everything the Obama
administration is trying to accomplish.

Who is opposing what? Squealing pglets will oppose anything ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Feb 1, 2:19*pm, Han wrote:
Robatoy wrote in news:5153f412-e363-4458-ae70-
:

....adn they're usually busy opposing any- and everything the Obama
administration is trying to accomplish.

Who is opposing what? *Squealing pglets will oppose anything ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Do you remember Boer Koekoek van de Boeren Partij?
(BK) "Ik ber er teugen."
(reporter) "Waarom?"
(BK) "Omdat ik er teugen ben."

Translation: A politician stated he was against something, and a
reporter asked him why. The answer was: "because I am against it.."

On 2/1/2010 2:33 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Do you remember Boer Koekoek van de Boeren Partij?
(BK) "Ik ber er teugen."
(reporter) "Waarom?"
(BK) "Omdat ik er teugen ben."

Translation: A politician stated he was against something, and a
reporter asked him why. The answer was: "because I am against it.."

Didn't know "Pelosi" was Dutch!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Robatoy wrote in news:0146eba6-b522-4ebf-98d5-
:

Do you remember Boer Koekoek van de Boeren Partij?
(BK) "Ik ber er teugen."
(reporter) "Waarom?"
(BK) "Omdat ik er teugen ben."

Translation: A politician stated he was against something, and a
reporter asked him why. The answer was: "because I am against it.."

Yes, I remember Boer Koekoek (Farmer Cuckoo).
He lived in Bennekom, all of 3 miles from where I lived at the time. He
was the prototype of candidate for the protest voter. Garnered FARRR too
many votes, but luckily only once or twice. This was a big thing in
Holland, because of the large number of parties represented in the lower
chamber of parliament, and the necessity for coalition negotiations. His
impact was far greater than it should have been. As protest candidates
always have an impact out of proportion to their "contribution".

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:35:28 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Feb 1, 12:20*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 2/1/2010 12:29 AM, LDosser wrote:

You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily
amused.

Here, for your dining and dancing entertainment, is Matsunari-San and
the Luminescent Pigs!

url might be useful

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729767

Confirmed: I _am_ easily amused!

Just remembering a farm neighbor (whose pigs were fixated on becoming
free-range porkers) saying: "If you see one of my pigs, kick it - it's
either loose, trying to get loose, or thinking about getting loose."

By their fluorescence shall ye know them.

More seriously, I can see this as a (possibly) useful research tracking
tool.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Hell, if you develop that pig-luminescense out further, you won't have
to start your BBQ.

Drew Barrymore, move over. "Firestarter III, Piglet Pie!"


--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:56:28 -0700, the infamous "Max"
scrawled the following:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

ROFL.

Yeah, that was truly slick of Baldy, wasnt' it, Max?


--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:41:24 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Bob
Martin wrote:

in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article , Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad:

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
WAY down.
How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
of any import.

Please produce said evidence.


Start he

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...-on-co2-amplif
ication-its-less-than-we-thought/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas".

How's that swallowing coming along, Bob? Looks pretty advanced to me.


You overlooked 3 important words: "...of any import." I'll bet that
wasn't an accident, Mr. Alarmist. How does it feel for your entire
cartel of Alarmist crime to come tumbling down around you as it is?

Don't worry, you'll find another "cause" soon. You libs always do.
Maybe go back to overpopulation or anti-nuke? BIG sigh

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:41:24 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article , Bob
Martin wrote:

in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone

wrote:
In article , Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad:

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll
cut it
WAY down.
How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or
glucose.
It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please
make
sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse
gas
of any import.

Please produce said evidence.


Start he

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...-on-co2-amplif
ication-its-less-than-we-thought/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fact,
a greenhouse gas".

How's that swallowing coming along, Bob? Looks pretty advanced to me.


You overlooked 3 important words: "...of any import." I'll bet that
wasn't an accident, Mr. Alarmist. How does it feel for your entire
cartel of Alarmist crime to come tumbling down around you as it is?

Don't worry, you'll find another "cause" soon. You libs always do.
Maybe go back to overpopulation or anti-nuke? BIG sigh

Shave The Whales

On Feb 3, 2:53*am, "LDosser" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:41:24 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article , Bob
Martin wrote:

in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone

wrote:
In article , Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad:

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll
cut it
WAY down.
How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or
glucose.
It is also a greenhouse gas. *If you want to stop breathing, please
make
sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. *(Humor intended).

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse
gas
of any import.

Please produce said evidence.

Start he

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...-on-co2-amplif
ication-its-less-than-we-thought/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fact,
a greenhouse gas".

How's that swallowing coming along, Bob? *Looks pretty advanced to me..


You overlooked 3 important words: *"...of any import." *I'll bet that
wasn't an accident, Mr. Alarmist. *How does it feel for your entire
cartel of Alarmist crime to come tumbling down around you as it is?

Don't worry, you'll find another "cause" soon. *You libs always do.
Maybe go back to overpopulation or anti-nuke? *BIG sigh

Shave The Whales

...then there is the Canuckistani mantra: "Save The Forests, Eat a
Beaver!"

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:53:56 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:41:24 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article , Bob
Martin wrote:

in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone

wrote:
In article , Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad:

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll
cut it
WAY down.
How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or
glucose.
It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please
make
sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse
gas
of any import.

Please produce said evidence.


Start he

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...-on-co2-amplif
ication-its-less-than-we-thought/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fact,
a greenhouse gas".

How's that swallowing coming along, Bob? Looks pretty advanced to me.


You overlooked 3 important words: "...of any import." I'll bet that
wasn't an accident, Mr. Alarmist. How does it feel for your entire
cartel of Alarmist crime to come tumbling down around you as it is?

Don't worry, you'll find another "cause" soon. You libs always do.
Maybe go back to overpopulation or anti-nuke? BIG sigh

Shave The Whales

My fave bumper sticker:

NUKE THE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:53:56 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:41:24 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article , Bob
Martin wrote:

in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone

wrote:
In article , Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad:

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours -
that'll
cut it
WAY down.
How in the hell did the consequences of living become a
pollutant?

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or
glucose.
It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing,
please
make
sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse
gas
of any import.

Please produce said evidence.


Start he

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...-on-co2-amplif
ication-its-less-than-we-thought/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in
fact,
a greenhouse gas".

How's that swallowing coming along, Bob? Looks pretty advanced to me.


You overlooked 3 important words: "...of any import." I'll bet that
wasn't an accident, Mr. Alarmist. How does it feel for your entire
cartel of Alarmist crime to come tumbling down around you as it is?

Don't worry, you'll find another "cause" soon. You libs always do.
Maybe go back to overpopulation or anti-nuke? BIG sigh

Shave The Whales

My fave bumper sticker:

NUKE THE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS


LOL!

Mine from way back is:

FREE THE INDY 500!

Larry Jaques wrote:

Shave The Whales

My fave bumper sticker:

NUKE THE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS

One I've never seen:

Whale Oil is a Renewable Resource
Live Green

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:33:55 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:53:56 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

Shave The Whales

My fave bumper sticker:

NUKE THE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS

I liked it because it incensed _everyone_.


LOL!

Mine from way back is:

FREE THE INDY 500!

Good 'un.

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

On Jan 30, 7:18*am, Han wrote:
My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl)

Thanks for that link/tip. I have been reading that online paper and
must say that fits me and my outlook perfectly.
Then, upon reading where that paper came from, it became clear why I
like it as much as I do.
It was a combination of two very different newspapers, one artsy-
fartsy from Amsterdam and one all-business/international paper from
Rotterdam/The Hague.
Well, guess what... where I was born and raised was almost exactly
dead-centre between those 3 cities. Alphen Aan Den Rijn. In the 1960's
we had influences from all three cities, in terms of fashion, music,
etc. Then also wedged between Leiden and Utrecht, there was an
academic influence as well.


Then all hell broke loose when I first tuned in to Radio Caroline..G

Really cool stuff. Again, thanks for that.

r

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:53:56 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Shave The Whales

My fave bumper sticker:

NUKE THE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS


Save the whales, collect the entire set.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:35:04 -0700, the infamous Mark Hansen
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:53:56 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Shave The Whales

My fave bumper sticker:

NUKE THE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS


Save the whales, collect the entire set.

Jesus Saves, Moses Invests!

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)


Great cover! Bookmarked for later perusal. Thanks.