From: "Mark" 

Oh, please Rich. There is no such consensus, large or otherwise, in fact a
consensus cannot be measured in that manner, either it is, or it isn't.
Indeed, increasingly larger numbers of scientists have been able to break
through the conventional wisdom smokescreen of that supposed
"consensus" of late.

Bush has nothing to do with it. Oh, do you mean that one guy that shows up,
often, here and there on all the major (and minor) networks to whine about
how oppressed he is? 


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:44602184$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> There really is a large consensus on global warming. Just because the Bush
> administration chose to censor/suppress/gut reports on it doesn't make it
> any less valid.
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:44601c0b{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Apparently then, we have an abundance of time Rich 
>>
>> I'm all for researching away, same will help in the long run to develop
>> adaptation routines, the only true solution. I am sick, though, of
>> hearing about all the economically detrimental stuff we should be doing
>> right now because a bunch of die-hard politically correct
"scientists"
>> want to push their unproven BS upon us. > fortunately, more and more of us can see through their OZ curtains>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:44601805$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Most of us are saying there needs to be more research and to see what we
>>> can do about emissions that will speed up the warming trend. The Permian
>>> extinction occurred over thousands of years.  There is time.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:44600dcf$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> And with a 10,000:1 ratio against the most powerful things
humans have
>>>> been able to devise in their entire history, you still
propose that we
>>>> have rats chance in hell of modifying what the Earth feels like
>>>> delivering upon us? >>> pie-in-the-sky outlook to me>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:4460062a{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Geo"  wrote in
message news:445ffe8b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:445fde98$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> possibility.  We've had 95% mass extinctions
just because the
>>>>>>> temperature
>>>>>>> went up 10F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me we've had mass extinctions because
of abrupt change
>>>>>> due to
>>>>>> meteor strikes or because if ice ages but not
because the temperature
>>>>>> went
>>>>>> up. When the temperature goes up, life flourishes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The raising of temperature and the release of  frozen
methane hydrates
>>>>> from the ocean  may have caused the worst mass
extinction in history.
>>>>> It's still subject to debate whether the release was
due to global
>>>>> warming, meteor strike or volcanic activity or a combination
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s938770.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> The situation would have been much worse in the
Permian era, he said.
>>>>> Ryskin calculated that prehistoric oceans could easily
have contained
>>>>> enough methane to liberate an energy about 10,000
times greater than
>>>>> the world's entire nuclear weapons stockpile going off at once.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5