Re[14]: [at-l] another stove question

[spiriteagle99@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
> >"...That is absolutely not the case" claims Bryan to the contention that
> >scientists have know for years that it's a greenhouse effect that makes
>the
> >world warm."
>
>Let me rephrase. I've read thousands of pages from scientists on both sides
>of
>the current conflict. I have yet to read any that claimed there is not and
>never
>has been a greenhouse effect on the temperature of the earth.

But he didn't say that.

>Temperature cycles exist for many reasons -- some understood and some
>  not. And some of these have nothing to do with greenhouse impacts.
>
>  Volcanoes hide the sun for long periods and the earth gets cold.


>The tilt of the earth in relation to the sun changes minutely from time to
>time, impacting temperatures.

Uh, Bob - not to get nitpicky or anything but where the hell did you get
that from?  It did happen on a long term basis - like before mankinds
ancestors were around to see it happen, but I don't think you EVER want to
see it happen again.  We won't be around to argue about this stuff if it
does.



>  Meteorites strike the earth and kick up great dust clouds that impact
>  temperatures.
>

LOL!!! - and that's another catastrophe neither of us wants to see.

>  I suspect Bryan has let his politics get in the way of his knowledge.
>

Maybe --- but don't count on it.  As you said -

>  The examples Bryan cites are just another confounding element in the
>current dispute.

And as I said long ago on another list - it's those "confounding elements"
that show you why your theory is broke. Ask Einstein.  Well - maybe you'd
better ask Stephen Hawking.

Have fun -
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail