>More than half of the world's scientists say there is no irrefutable
>evidence to support the theory of "Global Warming." In fact, 17,000
>scientists signed a statement calling the theory of "Global
>Warming" a sham.
So who do we go with? The scientists or the Psychic Friends Network.
Check out
m McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 3:21 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
Talk about circular logic.
I've heard this argument made, with more specific targets, against every
organization ever conceived, from Greenpeace to t
ommunity, their employees, and even the environment.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, July 29, 2001 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
>
>
>I'm not
So then..who would you trust to tell you what is happening in the environment?
You could claim that a scientist wants to promote a specific conclusion to get more
funding.
Oil companies will say that the environment is just hunky dory to stay in business
Environmentalists will say that the env
e color --
green.
H.
-Original Message-
From: Wayne Putterill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 2:12 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
I do not dispute that environmental organisations raise money or that they
need money to
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 9:40 PM
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
>
> Well, exactly ... and the point I'm trying to make is, don'
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
>
>
> I get solicitations for donations all of the time from environmental
groups.
> And you're saying it&
en disappointed that so many seemingly intelligent people on this list buy
hook line and sinker everything the environmental groups tell them.
H.
-Original Message-
From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 1:14 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Kyoto and glo
oncious decision, well that's just wrong :(
Todd
-
As Gel would say, "*snicker*".
- Original Message -
From: "Jim McAtee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kyoto and gl
. Like damned
lemmings.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, July 29, 2001 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
>
>
>I get solicitations for donations
I get solicitations for donations all of the time from environmental groups.
And you're saying it's nonsense? Get real.
H.
-Original Message-
From: Wayne Putterill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 10:27 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Kyoto and glob
--- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:31 AM
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
>
>
> You know, one of the ironies of this thread is how it totally overlooks
You know, one of the ironies of this thread is how it totally overlooks what
money grubbers the environmental groups are.
Talk about greed.
Why is it that you think you only hear the BAD things from environmental
groups and never hear all that has been accomplished over the last several
decade
ere ever there is oil. The faster they deplete the oil reserves,
the sooner they will turn their massive monetary resources toward developing
alternative energy sources (so they can protect their profits).
H.
-Original Message-
From: Craig Dudley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Frid
>I think since the US has been rated by independent surveys to be the
>largest single supplier of greenhouse gases in the world
>that 'their share' might definitely be high, and not something at all that
>America would want to pick up the bill for.
Yup, we are certainly the world's largest em
>How does money equate to humanity ??? That really is bullshit, sorry Dave,
>it is.
My previous post went like this:
Money=stand-in for productive endeavor
Civilization=sum of all productive endeavor
Humanity=another word for civilization
And what exactly is wrong with this?
>We need to clean
>And sadly..that's what it always boils down to. Money.
>You can talk about love, good of the people, peace and happiness...
>but look throughout History and see what really drives mankind
>to act:
>M-O-N-E-Y.
>because usually,
>Money = Power.
Oh I get it that's why the Democrats didn't want
re finaly snaps and
> launches at their neighbor, we might be able to do something
> about it before
> every one else gets drawn in.
>
> That's just my uninformed opinion though.
>
> Todd Ashworth --
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee" <[EMAIL
al Message-
From: Dave Fobare [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 July 2001 16:17
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
>What's more important, Money or the planet?
Let me restate that. Money is nothing but a fungible commodity that
represent
I think since the US has been rated by independent surveys to be the largest single
supplier of greenhouse gases in the world
that 'their share' might definitely be high, and not something at all that America
would want to pick up the bill for.
I'm saying were I in that situation I would probab
-
- Original Message -
From: "Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
| On Friday, July 27, 2001 8:39 AM, Craig Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to treaty wasn't signed by the USA,
is that they disagree with the assessment of their 'share'.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fobare [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 July 2001 16:17
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
>Wha
>What's more important, Money or the planet?
Let me restate that. Money is nothing but a fungible commodity that
represents productive human endeavor. In short, civilization. So, your
question is really "What's more important, humanity or the planet?". Now,
plenty of well-meaning enviros don
On Friday, July 27, 2001 8:39 AM, Craig Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, he'd rather spend the $400 billion and his time on Star Wars because
>thats what his pupeteers in the Pentagon want.
>
Wait until some rouge nation dumps a nuclear bomb on California. Then you will see
some real poll
- Original Message -
From: "Craig Dudley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
> What's more important, Money or the planet?
>
Well said Craig!!
-Original Message-
From: Craig Dudley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:39 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
What's more important, Money or the planet?
That's the underlying question here,
as a whole from our destructive way of life. It's
a matter of priorities, and I don't share his.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fobare [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 July 2001 21:49
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Kyoto and global warming (was: RE: Hiyas! :))
> > Accord
> > According to the editorial, some estimates are that it would
> > cost the USA as much as $400 billion in lost GDP,
>
>Sorry just had to chime in here. IMHO, any statistics used in an editorial
>or coming out of a politicians mouth should immediately be questioned.
Yes, those cost estimates
28 matches
Mail list logo
