CLINTON IMPEACHED!!!
Jeff
seats in the next election!
SKICK WILLY BILLARY CLINTON, THE LIAR AND CHEAT, IMPEACHED!!!
Jeff
James A. Chamblee
>
> Yea, hoorah, great going Republicans!!!!! Republicans will pick up 50
> seats in the next election!
How short your memory and attention span.
You said the same thing before the November 3 election.
Keep saying it.
It's working..
Jim
Georgia
Bob
No. You are very, very wrong.
What the Republicans did, in ignoring their own constituent's wishes
and in ignoring even the slightest semblance of fairness in the
impeachment process, is to insure that they will be in the minority
again after the 2000 elections.
They have shot themselves in both feet and they have no bandages.
Bob
Jeff wrote:
>
> Yea, hoorah, great going Republicans!!!!! Republicans will pick up 50
> seats in the next election!
>
> SKICK WILLY BILLARY CLINTON, THE LIAR AND CHEAT, IMPEACHED!!!
>
> Jeff
--
If you ever injected truth into politics you would have no politics.
Will Rogers
Robert Thomas
> What the Republicans did, in ignoring their own constituent's wishes
> and in ignoring even the slightest semblance of fairness in the
> impeachment process, is to insure that they will be in the minority
> again after the 2000 elections.
>
only one democrat voted for. If there was partison, block voting going on,
it was the demos who were doing it.
Just commenting...........
cheers
bob
Sir Frederick
Especially when # 3 passed (the obstruction of justice).
Best,
--
f. martin mcneill Web : http://www.fuzzysys.com
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."
-- Mark Twain
Peter
that can hold office at one time.
Bob wrote in message ...
>Jeff,
>
> No. You are very, very wrong.
>
> What the Republicans did, in ignoring their own constituent's wishes
>and in ignoring even the slightest semblance of fairness in the
>impeachment process, is to insure that they will be in the minority
>again after the 2000 elections.
>
CLScott101
>Yea, hoorah, great going Republicans!!!!! Republicans will pick up 50
>seats in the next election!
>
Republicans have made an enormous mistake. They have ensured that Gore, the
radical environmentalist, will have 10 years in office, and will lose many
congressional seats.
-Connie
Robert Thomas
<19981220111948...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
>
> Republicans have made an enormous mistake. They have ensured that Gore,
the
> radical environmentalist, will have 10 years in office,
IF, Clinton is removed from office, Gore will have the advantage of being a
sitting president, not that this helped Bush very much. If a certain
representative from St. Louis has his way, Gore won't become president at
all, at all.
and will lose many
> congressional seats.
>
Assuming that the " will of the people" is that Clinton should not have
been impeached. What we have is polls with insufficient assurance of a
random sample and little, if any, effort to ensure that those polled are
likely voters. You may be right, but I certainly couldn't say that with
your certitude.
cheers
bob
James A. Chamblee
> Republicans have made an enormous mistake. They have ensured that Gore, the
> radical environmentalist, will have 10 years in office, and will lose many
> congressional seats.
There is nothing radical about Mr. Gore's environmental message. Please
tell me why you say that.
I know that I'm a cynic, but my belief is that he is simply using the
environmental issue to gain votes, and doesn't really have any solid
programs in mind. At least I believe that he would stop the dismantling
of environmental protections that the right wing GOP has undertaken.
Jim
Georgia
CLScott101
>
>There is nothing radical about Mr. Gore's environmental message. Please
>tell me why you say that.
>
>I know that I'm a cynic, but my belief is that he is simply using the
>environmental issue to gain votes, and doesn't really have any solid
>programs in mind. At least I believe that he would stop the dismantling
>of environmental protections that the right wing GOP has undertaken.
>
Sorry, Jim, but this is where I am with the conservatives. I believe Gore, in
the name of global warming, will do great damage to business and jobs around
the world. I agree with you he did it to gain votes, but he can't back down
now, and therefore will do the great damage to the US and world economy.
I believe there is a difference between good, safe, helpful environmental
projects and those being proposed for mythical "global warming". Recycling is
an example of a good project.
-Connie
Woodrow Sawyer
> Another case for term limits and perhaps limiting the numbers of attorneys
> that can hold office at one time.
I believe in term limits: One term in office; one term in jail.
Ron Kelley
>>cecropia
>
>>Yea, hoorah, great going Republicans!!!!! Republicans will pick up 50
>>seats in the next election!
>>
>Connie wrote:
>Republicans have made an enormous mistake. They have ensured that Gore, the
>radical environmentalist, will have 10 years in office, and will lose many
>congressional seats.
I don't know. Connie... it all depends on who they run against Gore.
Or if it will even be Gore. Richard Gephardt of Missouri is really
sounding like a candidate recently. I think, in the long run (two
years or more), this will turn out to be more favorable to the
Republicans for taking the high road, and less favorable to the
Democrats for taking the low road.
Hang in there, and don't give up yet.
Ron Kelley
James A. Chamblee
>
> I believe there is a difference between good, safe, helpful environmental
> projects and those being proposed for mythical "global warming". Recycling is
> an example of a good project.
Here we go again.
You have been bamboozled by the psuedo-science of the hack scientists
paid by the fossil fuel producers.
By 1995, corporations were spending over $1 billion per year on
anti-environmental PR, called “greenwashing.” A prime tactic of
corporate anti-environmental consulting firms is to discredit
environmentalists who oppose their client’s interests.
Industry spends hundreds of millions to create phony groups posing as
scientists or experts to persuade Americans that environmental crises
are myths.
For example, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, was founded in
1985 to “protect our fragile environment.” In fact, it puts out papers
opposing recycling, energy conservation, federal air and water
standards, pesticide control, and efforts to protect the ozone layer.
There are hundreds of such groups.
Fred Singer, a retired UVA professor, runs an outfit called the Science
and Environmental Policy Project. His clients are fossil fuel
producers. SEPP’s goal is to discredit global warming, acid rain and
ozone deletion. He doesn’t publish in peer-reviewed journals like
Science and Nature, but publishes pamphlets and press releases.
Another anti-environmental pseudo-scientist is Rogelio Maduro, a Lyndon
LaRouche editor. La Rouche believes that the queen of England runs the
world drug trade, and that the KGB, in partnership with Jewish
overlords, is using environmentalism to create a New World Order.
He claims that DDT, PCBs and CFCs are victims of slander by
environmentalists, bent on depriving the world of refrigeration,
malarial control, a reliable food supply, and safe electricity in an
effort to reduce world population to facilitate the world takeover.
So, please, make sure your environmental info is coming from reputable
people. The vast majority of the reputable scientists know that global
warming is a reality that is already showing a few of the problems that
it can cause.
I will be away for a week, so I can't respond. Don't think I'm ignoring
you.
Jim
Georgia
Dick Zielinski
<jcha...@darientel.net> wrote:
>CLScott101 wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe there is a difference between good, safe, helpful environmental
>> projects and those being proposed for mythical "global warming". Recycling is
>> an example of a good project.
>
>Here we go again.
>
>You have been bamboozled by the psuedo-science of the hack scientists
>paid by the fossil fuel producers.
>
>By 1995, corporations were spending over $1 billion per year on
>anti-environmental PR, called “greenwashing.” A prime tactic of
>corporate anti-environmental consulting firms is to discredit
>environmentalists who oppose their client’s interests.
<snip>
Been a lot of debate on this subject here... So Jim, I gotta question
attcha...
What if you're wrong ? You will send us all back to the ice age...
which, of course, will be the end of some of us dinosaurs.
Dick
James A. Chamblee
> Been a lot of debate on this subject here... So Jim, I gotta question
> attcha...
>
> What if you're wrong ? You will send us all back to the ice age...
> which, of course, will be the end of some of us dinosaurs.
I don't understand how anyone could be sent back to the ice age, or any
other age for that matter. We simply have to find ways to generate
energy cleaner. Further, we cannot continue to allow fossil fuel
burners to pass the social costs of their actions on to the world's
population at large.
It's not my opinion; because other than write a few computer programs
to help site nuclear power plants 30 years ago, I don't know diddly
about world weather trends.
What I do know is that the scientists, scientific organizations and
publications that I have come to know and trust are virtually unanimous
in their belief that the activities of man are changing global climate.
Further, I can see that the fossil fuel producers have invested billions
of dollars to try to discredit the reputable scientific community. They
are in denial, except fot BP and Shell Oil. They attempt to dumb down
scientific questions such that they appear to have the same
uncertainties that political questions have.
So the choice is not to believe me or not. The choice is to believe the
scientists who know the most about it, or the corporations that gave us
Bhopol, the Exxon Valdez, and LoveCanal.
Jim
Georgia
Angelo Campanella
>What I do know is that the scientists, scientific organizations and
>publications that I have come to know and trust are virtually unanimous
>in their belief that the activities of man are changing global climate.
What is making me uncomfortable is that I see no numerical proof.
No calculations of energy balance, no quantification of heat
sources. I know that the sun delivers one kilowatt per square yard of heat in
the daytime and then the earth re-radiates off (at 290 degrees
Kelvin surface temperature) about 1/2 kilowatt per square yard both day and
night which appears to have created our recent (290K+-, or about 59 degrees
F.) balance temperature.
What needs to be done next is to calculate this as total energy in, then
compare this with combustion heat products for all oil and coal consumed daily
for instance. Then there is the conduction of heat out from the inner core to
our surface. This may be minor, but I'm not sure. It is likely constant and
indepenedent of what we do on the surface.
Add these energies, then use the Boltzmann law (or is it the
Rayleigh-Jeans law) where heat radiated off to space goes as temperature to
the fourth power. This will give a new equilibrium temperature (290K+), and
that is ostensibly the increment that is being complained about.
Has anyone seen this paradigm written up anywhere?
Ang.
~ http://www.Point-and-Click.com/Campanella_Acoustics/ ~
CLScott101
>I don't understand how anyone could be sent back to the ice age, or any
>other age for that matter. We simply have to find ways to generate
>energy cleaner. Further, we cannot continue to allow fossil fuel
>burners to pass the social costs of their actions on to the world's
>population at large.
>
>It's not my opinion; because other than write a few computer programs
>to help site nuclear power plants 30 years ago, I don't know diddly
>about world weather trends.
>
>What I do know is that the scientists, scientific organizations and
>publications that I have come to know and trust are virtually unanimous
>in their belief that the activities of man are changing global climate.
>
Jim, I am in agreement with you that the activities of mankind will indeed
affect the global climate in the future just because of so many people. I also
agree we need to stop burning fossil fuel.
Nuclear power plants for generation of electricity would be one factor. The
other is to stop burning oil in our cars. I just can't figure out why we are
so slow on this issue. The technology is there or could be developed for many
alternates: battery, ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, propane. From what I know,
I would favor a duel-powered vehicle such as the one GM developed. It has a
small gas tank to start the car, then batteries which recharge themselves.
What is your opinion on which alternate has the best chance politically?
-Connie
Russ Weber
clsco...@aol.com (CLScott101) wrote:
>Jim, I am in agreement with you that the activities of mankind will indeed
>affect the global climate in the future just because of so many people. I also
>agree we need to stop burning fossil fuel.
>
>Nuclear power plants for generation of electricity would be one factor. The
>other is to stop burning oil in our cars. I just can't figure out why we are
>so slow on this issue. The technology is there or could be developed for many
>alternates: battery, ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, propane. From what I know,
>I would favor a duel-powered vehicle such as the one GM developed. It has a
>small gas tank to start the car, then batteries which recharge themselves.
I favor that combination for cars as well. Not just a small gas tank, but
a small constant speed gas engine. A very simple cheap engine with no
complicated mechanisms to adjust air and gas intake or to adjust ignition.
No need to have a heavy complex variable speed transmission as well. The
engine would function primarily to charge the batteries and extend their
range. The batteries would control speed and assist in braking.
Another source of power is a flywheel. There a prototype on the road that
uses the stored power of a massive flywheel to run the car. The maximum
speed of the flywheel is reached by overnight "charging".
I'm writing this from memory. Maybe someone has more current info on these
type of cars.
Russ
Bob
It doesn't appear this is a dual powered vehicle but it is an
interesting concept. On the market now.
However, in searching through the various pieces of information I could
not find anything relating to price.
http://www.honda1999.com/cars/ev/
Bob
--
Ed Hatcher
>
> In article <19981226110610...@ng19.aol.com>,
> clsco...@aol.com (CLScott101) wrote:
>
> >Jim, I am in agreement with you that the activities of mankind will indeed
> >affect the global climate in the future just because of so many people. I also
> >agree we need to stop burning fossil fuel.
> >
> >Nuclear power plants for generation of electricity would be one factor. The
> >other is to stop burning oil in our cars. I just can't figure out why we are
> >so slow on this issue. The technology is there or could be developed for many
> >alternates: battery, ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, propane. From what I know,
> >I would favor a duel-powered vehicle such as the one GM developed. It has a
> >small gas tank to start the car, then batteries which recharge themselves.
>
> I favor that combination for cars as well. Not just a small gas tank, but
> a small constant speed gas engine. A very simple cheap engine with no
> complicated mechanisms to adjust air and gas intake or to adjust ignition.
> No need to have a heavy complex variable speed transmission as well. The
> engine would function primarily to charge the batteries and extend their
> range. The batteries would control speed and assist in braking.
>
> Another source of power is a flywheel. There a prototype on the road that
> uses the stored power of a massive flywheel to run the car. The maximum
> speed of the flywheel is reached by overnight "charging".
>
> I'm writing this from memory. Maybe someone has more current info on these
> type of cars.
>
> Russ
For pretty good planes, check Mechanics Illustrated of about 1943, or
Popular Science.
The thing workds, sort of, thought the fly wheel is awfully big and
heavy.
It does that the complaint about taking so long to recharge batteries
doesn't seem to imaagine the way we change a flashlight battery. I
imagine that if a decent battery could developed (on't know it could be)
we would slide up to our friendly Exxon station and 1)push a button,
which would drop the old battery out, and the 2) open the side panel
under the door, 3) insert chute from battery dispenser, 4)pay machine
with card, watch the old battery slide into place, 5) collect receipt
and drive off.
The dumb part comes when all the old batteries get hooked up to the
cable from the power company and the local power plant burns all that
coal or oil or natural gas to make exlectricity to recharge the battery.
That's going to pollute the atmosphere, isn't it? And use up precious
resources?
Perhaps simply to use nuclear power, like the hungry greedy but not
entirely stupid French do now.
--
EAH
Otium cum dignitate
Charles R. Galbach
some huge problems. The first obvious one is that with the current
battery technology, one needs a very large array of batteries (lots of
weight and space) to get any reasonable range. Then there is the problem
of pollution transference - when one goes to charge the batteries, it
puts a huge, polluting drain on all those fossil fueled power plants.
The less obvious problems involve such simple things as rain, heat cold
and dark; if you have to use windshield wipers or an air conditioner, or
a heater, or your headlights, that puny range really goes in the toilet.
So, if one goes say 20 miles to work in the morning, and the batteries
then show a range of 50 miles remaining, you might think you're okay for
the trip home. But then it gets cold and rainy and dark. Suddenly your
range goes down to 7 miles, and less than halfway home, in the dark,
that $60,000 marvelous but tiny electric car just quits. Yes, there is a
huge variability of range depending on climatic conditions. All those
optimistic numbers you hear coming out of the university/scientific
tests or prototypes mentioning potential ranges of hundreds of miles are
only for ideal conditions. Envirowhackos don't want this mentioned,
ever. Did I mention you picked up your grandkids on the way home and
they are in that car with you in the dark, freezing. Environmentalists
don't care about that. Fewer people, fewer problems! Simple!
No pure electric scheme I've read about can deal with the above. Hauling
pre-charged batteries around, as Ed mentions, is usually an early reject
as very impractical - pumping gasoline long distances through pipelines
is a difficult to beat logistics method. Probably the only "electric"
schenario that has any chance at all, is a hybrid gasoline/electric
method. That way, the gasoline engine is run at a constant speed to
charge a smaller set of batteries; at a constant speed, pollution
control of the gasoline engine is made much, much easier - it only has
to deal with density altitude and humidity - no variable load, and can
be quite small - maybe the size of a large lawnmower engine. Heavy and
complex stuff like transmission and transaxle are also eliminated, as a
tradeoff for the batteries. If the batteries charge full up, the gas
engine simply shuts down. If the batteries go down to some level, like
maybe 25%, the gas engine just fires up and recharges the batteries. If
the wipers or ac or heater or lights are needed, the engine just runs
more often or longer.
The hot rodders in the crowd won't like the hybrid. It will probably
only be able to do maybe 60 mph or so; whatever max speed the gas engine
can keep the batteries charging. Acceleration will no doubt be at a
sissy level. And if auxilliary equipment is needed, like ws wipers,
lights, ac or heat, you'll have to drive slower to keep it from pooping
out on you - maybe not a real bad thing. Souping up will still consist
of illegally tampering with the pollution control, same as now, and
maybe adding batteries for a little extra acceleration time. But I can't
imagine something that could out perform even the obsolete chevette of a
few years ago.
I've read about a diesel/electric hybrid that really looks promising. GM
has some buses currently doing field tests and will probably go with
this setup within a year or two. It will pollute less even than today's
gasoline engines; way less than current diesels; and will be pretty good
in the mileage and efficiency department too, especially in the stop and
start local, in town situation. And for a commercial application like
this, there will hopefully be no demand for high performance hot
rodding.
I really think there are practical and economic methods of controlling
pollution, like the hybrid. And they will come mainly from the
transportation industry. They might need a bit of "encouragement" and
even research help from government, but in the long run, they will not
come up with the stupid schemes, like an all electric car with all the
inherent costs and inefficiencies and problems, that some folks would
like to stuff down our throats right now.
Oops! My soapbox just ran out of steam! Bye!
Chuck
Charlie
<galb...@pgh.net> wrote:
>... Environmentalists don't care about that. Fewer people, fewer problems! Simple!
How come you decided to screw up what was a helpful, well presented
post with this unneeded comment? Devil make you do it (shades of
Flip)?
And do you question ... more people, more problems?
Charlie
Charlie
James A. Chamblee
> - when one goes to charge the batteries, it
> puts a huge, polluting drain on all those fossil fueled power plants.
But a major advantage is that the pollution source is only one set of
smokestacks, easier to keep clean than 100,000 cars.
>
> No pure electric scheme I've read about can deal with the above. Hauling
> pre-charged batteries around, as Ed mentions, is usually an early reject
> as very impractical - pumping gasoline long distances through pipelines
> is a difficult to beat logistics method.
Where is gasoline piped? Usually it is shipped/barged to a terminal and
then trucked. Electricity, OTOH is truly piped directly to the user.
>Probably the only "electric"
> schenario that has any chance at all, is a hybrid gasoline/electric
> method.
Why not battery stations or vending machines where a person can exchange
a low battery for a hot one? Low battery withdrawn and hot one
inserted like a floppy disc. The battery station/vending machine
recharges the low ones.
Jim
Georgia
Charles R. Galbach
anyone is awake?
Chuck
PS - thanks for the complimentary portion of your response!
Charles R. Galbach
someplace. It'd take one heck of a lot of trucks to fill up the dozen or
so big tanks that are at one of them about 10 miles down the road from
me. For sure the fuel we used in our airplanes was piped at least some
distance from a barge dock. It was how those tank farms got filled up as
far as I know. Trucks pick up at those terminals though and further
distribute to service stations, fleet operators, etc., where it is piped
into the final vehicles. It's sort of comical to see various "brands" of
trucks pull out of that terminal, btw.
As far as the battery drop-off/pick-up versus gasoline stations feeding
hybrids, we're both guessing, speculating, shucking and jiving. Let's
see here; I've got 37 cents in change in my pocket. I'll bet you the 37
cents that in 10 years my hybrid idea is ahead of your battery only
vehicle idea, and that gasoline propelled vehicles will still be the
"vast" majority sold. I'll limit the bet to new vehicles only, just to
be "fair". Ed can keep track of the bet and the sums involved. If the
gasoline turns out to be a "weird" flavor, that has no effect on the
bet.
One other comment. It may be "easier" to keep one set of smokestacks
clean in theory, but every environmental screwup is also the equivalent
of those 100,000 cars screwing up simultaneously. There are and always
have been certain holes in the "economy of scale" theories. It's what is
also going to lead to smaller rather than larger nuclear plants in the
future. Also, can you imagine the battery disposal or recycling
problems, in the order of 20 to 50 times the current problems. Talk
about a pollution time bomb waiting to happen. Even a switch to exotic
batteries carries risks. I've got some batteries in the house right now
with severe warnings about improper disposal. Methinks the battery
solution needs some tinkering that we "ain't" up to delivering right
now.
I think we're looking at multiple decades to make real changes in our
methods of locomotion; and we really don't know where it's going to end
up; and whatever happens will happen incrementally, just as it has for
the past 100 years.
BTW, your health situation hasn't seemed to dent your feisty meter at
all. I for one am happy to see that. I hope you're feeling as well as
your ng demeanor indicates. Nice jousting wit ya!
Chuck
James A. Chamblee wrote:
>
> Charles R. Galbach wrote:
>
> > - when one goes to charge the batteries, it
> > puts a huge, polluting drain on all those fossil fueled power plants.
>
> But a major advantage is that the pollution source is only one set of
> smokestacks, easier to keep clean than 100,000 cars.
>
> >
> > No pure electric scheme I've read about can deal with the above. Hauling
> > pre-charged batteries around, as Ed mentions, is usually an early reject
> > as very impractical - pumping gasoline long distances through pipelines
> > is a difficult to beat logistics method.
>
> Where is gasoline piped? Usually it is shipped/barged to a terminal and
> then trucked. Electricity, OTOH is truly piped directly to the user.
>
> >Probably the only "electric"
> > schenario that has any chance at all, is a hybrid gasoline/electric
> > method.
>
Ed Hatcher
Concur entirely. You misunderstood my battery scenario. I don't
propose carrying a chareged battery, but that instea of pulling up to a
charging station, you would pull up to an exchange station, where they
would dump out your old battery and swap it for a hot one. That
technique has a few adherents and no present no impossibilities, though,
like ALL these ideas, it has a host of difficulties.
I spent a lot of time at various oil companies and other related labs
trying to get a handle on the use of electricity, and I came out about
where you do. Gasoline is hard to beat for mobile power.
The changes, if and when, will start with commercial transportation.
Private solutions will have to wait for some nut with dirty fingernails
and a gleam in his eye out in a garage somewhere.
Ron Kelley
<jcha...@darientel.net> wrote:
>Charles R. Galbach wrote:
>
>> - when one goes to charge the batteries, it
>> puts a huge, polluting drain on all those fossil fueled power plants.
>
>But a major advantage is that the pollution source is only one set of
>smokestacks, easier to keep clean than 100,000 cars.
At the current numbers of electric vehicles, it's not a problem. The
problem occurs when there are 6,000,000 electric vehicles in any major
city. Now you need 600 new electricity generating plants, in the
city, burning fossil fuels. We *should* go to nuclear, but the
environmentalists and the "sky is falling" people would have a cow.
>
>>
>> No pure electric scheme I've read about can deal with the above. Hauling
>> pre-charged batteries around, as Ed mentions, is usually an early reject
>> as very impractical - pumping gasoline long distances through pipelines
>> is a difficult to beat logistics method.
>
>Where is gasoline piped? Usually it is shipped/barged to a terminal and
>then trucked. Electricity, OTOH is truly piped directly to the user.
Some gasoline is piped between refineries and major centers.
Electricity is difficult to transmit long distances because of the
voltage drop in the lines.
>Why not battery stations or vending machines where a person can exchange
>a low battery for a hot one? Low battery withdrawn and hot one
>inserted like a floppy disc. The battery station/vending machine
>recharges the low ones.
I'm not current on state of the art batteries now, but *in general* it
can be said that the longer you take to charge a battery, the longer
it will last and the more discharge/charge cycles you will get. You
can charge the current crop of 12v car batteries in one to two hours,
but that is rather hard on them. A better charge rate is eight to
twelve hours depending on the amp/hour rating. Even if the station
were doing the recharging, they would need a tremendous number of
batteries in stock, fully charged to keep up with the demand. Don't
forget, we're not talking about one 12v, 600 amp/hour, battery here,
we're talking (I'd guess) 10 to 16 batteries per car. Multiply that
by the number of cars that currently visit gas stations per day, and
you've got a heck of a lot of batteries.
I would prefer a switch to hydrogen fuel, but that brings in a whole
bunch of *new* problems.
Ron Kelley
Angelo Campanella
burn pegs it around 0.075 degrees C. Not enough to be concerned about.
Next, I'll look at CO2 buildup in the air.
James A. Chamblee
> BTW, your health situation hasn't seemed to dent your feisty meter at
> all. I for one am happy to see that. I hope you're feeling as well as
> your ng demeanor indicates. Nice jousting wit ya!
My post-op pain is largely gone, and I drove a golf cart for SWMBO and
putted each green for nine holes yesterday. But I didn't play. Each
day I try to do a little more. Tomorrow it's the Ironman competition.
Thanx for noticing.
James A. Chamblee
>
> My preliminary calculation of global warming on account of the fossil fuels we
> burn pegs it around 0.075 degrees C. Not enough to be concerned about.
>
> Next, I'll look at CO2 buildup in the air.
Better stick to the old acoustics Ang.
Judging by the descriptions of the computer models being used and
constantly enhanced to describe atmospheric behavior, calculations by
one man won't cut it.
I'm not trying to be obtuse; but we only discovered Chaos Theory and
the Butterfly Effect a few years back. The current models, as I
understand, must address very complex interactions between air, land and
sea.
Jim
Georgia