http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

I just thought you may be interested in this.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

I just thought you may be interested in this.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Let's see, it's from the BBC, which means it may be distorted beyond
recognition, in order to fit their agenda.

Secondly, if the Bush adminstration is as inept as all tehy lefty's believe,
then, assuming the report from the BBC is accuarate, then the report from
the EPA must be flawed.

Thirdly, The EPA has a history of lying and making things up, as they did
with their bogus report on second hand smoke.

Most importantly to me, is the fact that the 4 biggest generators of
greenhouse gas are not from human activity.

Bad science is bad science, no matter where it comes from.

The report seems to imply that it's Bush who is responible for the Kyoto
Treaty not being ratified. That is false. Under the Clinton Administration
the senate voted unamiously, IIRC not to ratify.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Most importantly to me, is the fact that the 4 biggest generators of
greenhouse gas are not from human activity.

Bad science is bad science, no matter where it comes from.

The report seems to imply that it's Bush who is responible for the Kyoto
Treaty not being ratified. That is false. Under the Clinton
Administration
the senate voted unamiously, IIRC not to ratify.

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
George Bush, Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002


The President is not the one who authorizes treaties.

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:48:11 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

I just thought you may be interested in this.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Let's see, it's from the BBC, which means it may be distorted beyond
recognition, in order to fit their agenda.

There you go. Dismissed out of hand.

It's only a fact if it comes from an approved McKelvy RIGHT WING
source.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:48:11 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

I just thought you may be interested in this.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Let's see, it's from the BBC, which means it may be distorted beyond
recognition, in order to fit their agenda.

There you go. Dismissed out of hand.

You never stop with the distortions, do you?

I said MAY BE DISTORTED! That is not dismissing it out of hand.

It's only a fact if it comes from an approved McKelvy RIGHT WING
source.

In the case of global warming, I've yet to hear any qualified individual or
group, state that there's any reliable evidence.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:50:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


Xref: bigfeed.bellsouth.net rec.audio.opinion:541011


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:48:11 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

I just thought you may be interested in this.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Let's see, it's from the BBC, which means it may be distorted beyond
recognition, in order to fit their agenda.

There you go. Dismissed out of hand.

You never stop with the distortions, do you?

I said MAY BE DISTORTED!

"beyond recognition, in order to fit their agenda".

That is not dismissing it out of hand.

Which is why you acknowledged the article, of course.

Your tactics don't work on me. Sorry.

It's only a fact if it comes from an approved McKelvy RIGHT WING
source.

In the case of global warming, I've yet to hear any qualified individual or
group, state that there's any reliable evidence.

You might have bothered to read the article. Your government is now
saying it, *including* the CiC. Oh wait, I get your point now.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:50:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


Xref: bigfeed.bellsouth.net rec.audio.opinion:541011


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:48:11 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

I just thought you may be interested in this.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Let's see, it's from the BBC, which means it may be distorted beyond
recognition, in order to fit their agenda.

There you go. Dismissed out of hand.

You never stop with the distortions, do you?

I said MAY BE DISTORTED!

"beyond recognition, in order to fit their agenda".

That is not dismissing it out of hand.

Which is why you acknowledged the article, of course.

Your tactics don't work on me. Sorry.

It's only a fact if it comes from an approved McKelvy RIGHT WING
source.

In the case of global warming, I've yet to hear any qualified individual
or
group, state that there's any reliable evidence.

You might have bothered to read the article. Your government is now
saying it, *including* the CiC. Oh wait, I get your point now.

You're assuming I didn't read it. Bad assumtion.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:13:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

In the case of global warming, I've yet to hear any qualified individual
or
group, state that there's any reliable evidence.

You might have bothered to read the article. Your government is now
saying it, *including* the CiC. Oh wait, I get your point now.

You're assuming I didn't read it. Bad assumtion.

OK, so you're now admitting the our current administration isn't the
source of "reliable information".

Fine with me.

From: dave weil
Date: 2/24/04 10:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:13:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

In the case of global warming, I've yet to hear any qualified individual
or
group, state that there's any reliable evidence.

You might have bothered to read the article. Your government is now
saying it, *including* the CiC. Oh wait, I get your point now.

You're assuming I didn't read it. Bad assumtion.

OK, so you're now admitting the our current administration isn't the
source of "reliable information".

Fine with me.


When it comes to junk science there's far more coming from your buddies on the
left.

It's not an exclusive club.

On 04 Mar 2004 03:24:42 GMT, (Mikermckelvy)
wrote:

In the case of global warming, I've yet to hear any qualified individual
or
group, state that there's any reliable evidence.

You might have bothered to read the article. Your government is now
saying it, *including* the CiC. Oh wait, I get your point now.

You're assuming I didn't read it. Bad assumtion.

OK, so you're now admitting the our current administration isn't the
source of "reliable information".

Fine with me.


When it comes to junk science there's far more coming from your buddies on the
left.

It's not an exclusive club.

Which Schopenhauer is this exactly?