[The Boss]

Bjorn,

I don't dispute that a volcano can warm the ocean. What I dispute, and the quack site mentions the fact itself, that it is only speculation that the black smokers just inside the antarctic circle are proof there are volcanoes under west Antarctica - there is no direct evidence. The ice breaking up does not prove there are volcanoes or that they are active - circular logic!

The fact that you keep posting this, without even reading your own link does not make it true!

62, I don't expect ANYBODY to believe anything I say, all I am doing is disputing what THEY say. And when I post a source, it usually ends in .GOV like NASA and NOAA it is never Robert Felix's Ice Age Buy My Books Now quack site which infers that new volcanic activity off THE GALLAPAGOSE ISLANDS can somehow warm ANTARCTICA!

[johnta1]

Is there any CO2 emissions from spam emails?



Or heated keyboard typing?

[Bjorn]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Is there any CO2 emissions from spam emails?



Or heated keyboard typing?

Only from the ones in Connecticut....

[Bjorn]

Originally Posted by The Boss

Bjorn,

I don't dispute that a volcano can warm the ocean. What I dispute, and the quack site mentions the fact itself, that it is only speculation that the black smokers just inside the antarctic circle are proof there are volcanoes under west Antarctica - there is no direct evidence. The ice breaking up does not prove there are volcanoes or that they are active - circular logic!

The fact that you keep posting this, without even reading your own link does not make it true!

62, I don't expect ANYBODY to believe anything I say, all I am doing is disputing what THEY say. And when I post a source, it usually ends in .GOV like NASA and NOAA it is never Robert Felix's Ice Age Buy My Books Now quack site which infers that new volcanic activity off THE GALLAPAGOSE ISLANDS can somehow warm ANTARCTICA!

1) I DO read it, them...what i post...sure ,there are no "proof" of that volcanos heat the ocean...but they sure are hot when they erupt....and since you ask for proof, where is the proof that CO2 heats the Earth??
2) calling his books quack because you dont agree is not very scientific either....all sides should be looked at....but since Al Gores stuff is quack too, I guess it puts them on even keel?
3) and just because a site ends with NASA, diesnt mean it is not twisted ,afterall they DO get their funding from the govt, and if they dont agree ,theres no funding....simple logic.

[242177P]

Originally Posted by The Boss

And when I post a source, it usually ends in .GOV like NASA and NOAA...

I understand what you're saying, but as of late NASA has been heavily influenced by both the EPA, and the GOV. Would the NASA results be any different if they weren't vying for funding??

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by 242177P

I understand what you're saying, but as of late NASA has been heavily influenced by both the EPA, and the GOV. Would the NASA results be any different if they weren't vying for funding??

OR If they COULDN'T be fired by congress or the president? The VICE president IS in charge of NASA.