On Jun 19, 7:36 am, Bill C <
[email protected]> wrote:
> While just about everyone lined up and relentlessly hammered on him,
> with just a few allowing they had some doubt, he was the one who was
> right on the money.
> Hope he doesn't hold his breathe waiting for folks to admit being
> mistaken, since I happen to like having him around.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6mnu2p
>
> New study to force ministers to review climate change planExclusive
> Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis
> Julian Borger and John Vidal The Guardian, Thursday June 19 2008
> Article historyBritain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally
> rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a
> government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a
> "significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which
> has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
>
> <more there>
>
> Bill C
A few things that have me perplexed:
1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
warming from the previous century
3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
cool
4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
5) I saw just recently that a scientist from Boulder is being paid to
research the ice-melting patterns in Greenland. Funny thing, the
icecap in Greenland is melting from the bottom, where it is NOT
exposed to higher atmospheric temperatures. Why would ice melt from
the bottom, and not at the surface where exposed to a "hotter
atmosphere"?
6) why won't you folks just admit that while there may be changes in
earth's climate, it is not due to human influences and it is not
directly related to CO2 emissions.
One more thing, recent calculations have shown that if all the tax
increases that the Dali Bama has proposed take effect, the marginal
top tax rate will increase from 39 percent to over 56 percent. Do we
really want the government taking over half of every dollar to spend
on some poorly run, poorly regulated, inefficient program designed to
do nothing but redistribute the wealth of those who can and will work
to those who won't work, for the purpose of buying their votes with
our money???
