OT, I'll be Damned
 

Now those COMMIE NAZI FACIST CORRUPTED ''cops'' are hitting on little
kids for drawing on sidewalks with chalk!
www.drudgereport.com
Buy a box of chalk and let your kids draw on the sidewalks.
No more Hopscotch, kids.
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op... 8&ei=5087%0A

OT, I'll be Damned
 

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op... 8&ei=5087%0A

Seems as though Paul Krugman is mentally ill just like Al Gore.

The New York Times is a Liberal rag, and these days about the only thing it is good for is wrapping the
garbage (and reporting it as well).

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 17, 4:07 am, dxAce wrote:
Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN

-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op...l?em&ex=119276...





"
"
"
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White
House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around
President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were,
I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of
illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the
job -

to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda's recruiters could have
hoped for -

the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more
extreme. ""



Bush "Triumphant in Iraq";

- and Oil is over eighty dollars a barrel . .

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:07:46 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op... 8&ei=5087%0A

Seems as though Paul Krugman is mentally ill just like Al Gore.

The New York Times is a Liberal rag, and these days about the only thing it is good for is wrapping the
garbage (and reporting it as well).

If the neocons are bad and the liberals are bad and the republicans
are AWOL and the democrats are flaccid, whadda we got?

This country is el finito. Gasping for air on the beach of history.
Zieg heil, y'all.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

Sure, the price per barrel of crude oil is up.Inflation and many other
things account for that.How much was the price per barrel of crude oil
in 1941? (the year I was born) A couple of dollars would fill up a car's
gas tank.And look at wages, and the prices of cars and homes and food
etc.Check out, www.jacksongasprices.com
Adjusted for inflation, we are paying about the same per gallon of
gasoline as people paid in 1941.
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

I remember when I used to pay ten cents for a soda pop and a regular
size candy bar,,, or ten cents for a comic book.Try that
nowadays.Speaking of candy, I have been getting www.oldtimecandy.com
regular email newsletters for years.(Because I signed up for them)
Yesterday, my latest Old Time Candy (Candy you ate as a kid) email
newsletter showed up in my email box.Thanks, Old Time Candy.
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

y'all Canadians over there.
Canada's Scientist Shaking With Excitement Over Quakes.
www.standeyo.com
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:40:18 -0500, wrote:

Sure, the price per barrel of crude oil is up.Inflation and many other
things account for that.How much was the price per barrel of crude oil
in 1941? (the year I was born) A couple of dollars would fill up a car's
gas tank.And look at wages, and the prices of cars and homes and food
etc.Check out, www.jacksongasprices.com
Adjusted for inflation, we are paying about the same per gallon of
gasoline as people paid in 1941.
cuhulin

That's ridiculous.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

"Ross Archer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op... 8&ei=5087%0A

Krugman is the biggest partisan hack at the NYT.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

www.devilfinder.com Tough Punishment Expected For Warhead Errors

F...... A Straik!
So, what happens when the U.S.Airforce fires them? They don't get any
bennies, no pension, no retirement moola? They get a Dishonarable
Discharge.They ought to wind up doing life in the country club.
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:27:03 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"Ross Archer" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op... 8&ei=5087%0A

Krugman is the biggest partisan hack at the NYT.

And you are...

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

Second the liberal socialists are pushing this as an agenda against
capitalism. It's right out there in the open. The fact that you don't
get it is preposterous.

Third Nobel Peace prize committee decided to ignore their charter.

Fourth Al Gore is a nut case.

Fifth Al Gore generates more green house gas than most people.

So the Nobel Peace prize committee ignored their charter to give a prize
to a "do as I say, not as I do" liberal nut case and a cadre of useful
idiots termed as UN climate scientists.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

Yesterday, I read somewhere on the internet the Ozone Hole is back to
normal again.I think that is what I read.
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:





On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What Next . . .

My Carbon Footprint Is Bigger Than : Your Carbon Footprint !

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:58:54 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

You're still going to be under water soon.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?

OT, I'll be Damned
 

David wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:58:54 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

You're still going to be under water soon.

How do you define 'soon'?

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 20, 8:02 am, dxAce wrote:
David wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:58:54 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

You're still going to be under water soon.

How do you define 'soon'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, and/or 1,000,000 Years ~ RHF

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 20, 8:01 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon





wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Real Causes of Climate Change -may be-

? Mount Pinatubo Ash ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

? Sahara Dust ?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/walm3.htm

? China's Air Pollution Reaches U.S. Skies ?
http://www.physorg.com/news73311360.html

? Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate ?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...996069354.html

? Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World, Report Says ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...pollution.html

But Let Us All Blame The USA and The Evil Bush !

First We Must Monetize Pollution {Carbon Credits}
-Cause- Somebody's Got To Pay ! and This Process
of Monetization must Insure that the USA Pays the
Rest of the World to Clean-Up the Worlds Polllution
-because- the usa must pay, {blame the usa}
-Because- The Usa Must Pay. {Blame The Usa}
-BECAUSE- THE USA MUST PAY ! {BLAME THE USA}

the earth existed before mankind
and the earth will exist after mankind;
the age of mankind upon the earth
is but a moment in time;
the earth abides . . . ~ RHF

OT, I'll be Damned
 

RHF wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:01 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon





wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Real Causes of Climate Change -may be-

? Mount Pinatubo Ash ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

? Sahara Dust ?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/walm3.htm

? China's Air Pollution Reaches U.S. Skies ?
http://www.physorg.com/news73311360.html

? Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate ?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...996069354.html

? Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World, Report Says ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...pollution.html

But Let Us All Blame The USA and The Evil Bush !

First We Must Monetize Pollution {Carbon Credits}
-Cause- Somebody's Got To Pay ! and This Process
of Monetization must Insure that the USA Pays the
Rest of the World to Clean-Up the Worlds Polllution
-because- the usa must pay, {blame the usa}
-Because- The Usa Must Pay. {Blame The Usa}
-BECAUSE- THE USA MUST PAY ! {BLAME THE USA}

the earth existed before mankind
and the earth will exist after mankind;
the age of mankind upon the earth
is but a moment in time;
the earth abides . . . ~ RHF

Rickets, and other retards, believe that history began with their births.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
David wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:58:54 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

You're still going to be under water soon.

If the sea level goes up three feet worst case I'll still be 7 feet
above sea level. Thanks anyway for your concern.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

RHF wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:01 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon





wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate
change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls
under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving
of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous.
Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists.
None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no
more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate
change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Real Causes of Climate Change -may be-

? Mount Pinatubo Ash ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

? Sahara Dust ?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/walm3.htm

? China's Air Pollution Reaches U.S. Skies ?
http://www.physorg.com/news73311360.html

? Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate ?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...996069354.html

? Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World, Report Says ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...pollution.html

But Let Us All Blame The USA and The Evil Bush !

First We Must Monetize Pollution {Carbon Credits}
-Cause- Somebody's Got To Pay ! and This Process
of Monetization must Insure that the USA Pays the
Rest of the World to Clean-Up the Worlds Polllution
-because- the usa must pay, {blame the usa}
-Because- The Usa Must Pay. {Blame The Usa}
-BECAUSE- THE USA MUST PAY ! {BLAME THE USA}

the earth existed before mankind
and the earth will exist after mankind;
the age of mankind upon the earth
is but a moment in time;
the earth abides . . . ~ RHF

Rickets, and other retards, believe that history began with their births.

They lack the ability to evaluate information in an independent way.

Their prejudices color their thought processes.

A good opinion is formed on a realistic reduction of available data and
is subject to new and valid information. These people put way to much
trust in someone else to provide data to them that conform to their
preexisting internal biases.

In addition they generally ignore data that is not in conformance with
their internal bias and place emphasis on data that does conform. Result
is a skewed opinion not based in reality.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

RHF wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:01 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon





wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate
change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls
under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving
of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous.
Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists.
None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no
more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate
change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Real Causes of Climate Change -may be-

? Mount Pinatubo Ash ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

? Sahara Dust ?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/walm3.htm

? China's Air Pollution Reaches U.S. Skies ?
http://www.physorg.com/news73311360.html

? Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate ?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...996069354.html

? Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World, Report Says ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...pollution.html

But Let Us All Blame The USA and The Evil Bush !

First We Must Monetize Pollution {Carbon Credits}
-Cause- Somebody's Got To Pay ! and This Process
of Monetization must Insure that the USA Pays the
Rest of the World to Clean-Up the Worlds Polllution
-because- the usa must pay, {blame the usa}
-Because- The Usa Must Pay. {Blame The Usa}
-BECAUSE- THE USA MUST PAY ! {BLAME THE USA}

the earth existed before mankind
and the earth will exist after mankind;
the age of mankind upon the earth
is but a moment in time;
the earth abides . . . ~ RHF

Rickets, and other retards, believe that history began with their births.

They lack the ability to evaluate information in an independent way.

Their prejudices color their thought processes.

A good opinion is formed on a realistic reduction of available data and
is subject to new and valid information. These people put way to much
trust in someone else to provide data to them that conform to their
preexisting internal biases.

In addition they generally ignore data that is not in conformance with
their internal bias and place emphasis on data that does conform. Result
is a skewed opinion not based in reality.

Remember Y2K!

OT, I'll be Damned
 

I had meant that to read, Dear Dirty Dublin.When I woked up yesterday
morning, most of that Travel channel program was done with.I reckon
Samantha Brown's travel in Dublin thangy will be on tv again
someday.There is a Dublin,Mississippi too.
www.ryans.org/ryans_music.htm
(crank your pooter bolume wide open)
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 20, 10:59 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,





dxAce wrote:
RHF wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:01 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon

wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate
change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls
under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving
of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous.
Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists.
None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no
more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate
change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Real Causes of Climate Change -may be-

? Mount Pinatubo Ash ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

? Sahara Dust ?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/walm3.htm

? China's Air Pollution Reaches U.S. Skies ?
http://www.physorg.com/news73311360.html

? Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate ?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...996069354.html

? Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World, Report Says ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...china-pollutio...

But Let Us All Blame The USA and The Evil Bush !

First We Must Monetize Pollution {Carbon Credits}
-Cause- Somebody's Got To Pay ! and This Process
of Monetization must Insure that the USA Pays the
Rest of the World to Clean-Up the Worlds Polllution
-because- the usa must pay, {blame the usa}
-Because- The Usa Must Pay. {Blame The Usa}
-BECAUSE- THE USA MUST PAY ! {BLAME THE USA}

the earth existed before mankind
and the earth will exist after mankind;
the age of mankind upon the earth
is but a moment in time;
the earth abides . . . ~ RHF

Rickets, and other retards, believe that history began with their births.

They lack the ability to evaluate information in an independent way.

Their prejudices color their thought processes.

A good opinion is formed on a realistic reduction of available data and
is subject to new and valid information. These people put way to much
trust in someone else to provide data to them that conform to their
preexisting internal biases.

In addition they generally ignore data that is not in conformance with
their internal bias and place emphasis on data that does conform. Result
is a skewed opinion not based in reality.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The Result is a Skewed Opinion* based on a 'Selective' Reality.

* Opinion -based on- Half-Truths.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

RHF wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:01 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon





wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article
. com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate
change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming
falls
under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once
it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is
deserving
of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous.
Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate
scientists.
None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no
more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate
change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get
a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes
in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Real Causes of Climate Change -may be-

? Mount Pinatubo Ash ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

? Sahara Dust ?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/walm3.htm

? China's Air Pollution Reaches U.S. Skies ?
http://www.physorg.com/news73311360.html

? Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate ?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...996069354.html

? Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World, Report Says ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...na-pollution.h
tml

But Let Us All Blame The USA and The Evil Bush !

First We Must Monetize Pollution {Carbon Credits}
-Cause- Somebody's Got To Pay ! and This Process
of Monetization must Insure that the USA Pays the
Rest of the World to Clean-Up the Worlds Polllution
-because- the usa must pay, {blame the usa}
-Because- The Usa Must Pay. {Blame The Usa}
-BECAUSE- THE USA MUST PAY ! {BLAME THE USA}

the earth existed before mankind
and the earth will exist after mankind;
the age of mankind upon the earth
is but a moment in time;
the earth abides . . . ~ RHF

Rickets, and other retards, believe that history began with their births.

They lack the ability to evaluate information in an independent way.

Their prejudices color their thought processes.

A good opinion is formed on a realistic reduction of available data and
is subject to new and valid information. These people put way to much
trust in someone else to provide data to them that conform to their
preexisting internal biases.

In addition they generally ignore data that is not in conformance with
their internal bias and place emphasis on data that does conform. Result
is a skewed opinion not based in reality.

Remember Y2K!

That's a good example.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 19, 2:58 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

National and international science academies and professional
societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate
change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have
largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing
body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and
other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger
evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities".[1]

This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports,
scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys
of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of
individual scientists or self-selected lists of individuals such as
petitions.

MOST OF THE WARMING OBSERVED OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
HUMAN ACTIVITIES.

I'm glad you know so much better than actual scientists.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

There is conclusive evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

You can choose to ignore what science says, but you cannot claim that
scientific opinion says something other than what it does.
Humans are causing the majority of recent warming. That is the state
of current best scientific knowledge.
This is not opinion. It is documented fact.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 20, 11:34 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon





wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

There is conclusive evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

- You can choose to ignore what science says,
- but you cannot claim that scientific opinion
- says something other than what it does.
- Humans are causing the majority of recent warming.
- That is the state of current best scientific knowledge.
- This is not opinion. It is documented fact.


RA - DUH ! - Scientific 'Opinion(s)' is NOT
Indisputable Incontrivertable Scientific Fact [.]

Documenting a Group of Like 'Opinions'
Does Not Make These 'Opinions' Facts.

and thems is the facts ~ rhf

OT, I'll be Damned
 

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

There is conclusive evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

You can choose to ignore what science says, but you cannot claim that
scientific opinion says something other than what it does.
Humans are causing the majority of recent warming. That is the state
of current best scientific knowledge.
This is not opinion. It is documented fact.

Hogwash!

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 19, 2:58 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

National and international science academies and professional
societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate
change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have
largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing
body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and
other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger
evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities".[1]

This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports,
scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys
of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of
individual scientists or self-selected lists of individuals such as
petitions.

MOST OF THE WARMING OBSERVED OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
HUMAN ACTIVITIES.

I'm glad you know so much better than actual scientists.

Pay attention please. The only scientific body making the incredibly
weak claim is the one at the UN. That body is more political than
scientific.

Now wake up if you are able.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the
U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming
falls under the purview of a peace prize, there's no question
that once it's decided that the prize goes for that, Albert
Gore Jr. is deserving of it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous.
Global warming is occurring, and the majority of that
warming is anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of
climate scientists. None of this is controversial in
scientific circles, or at least no more controversial than
most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate
change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect.
Where have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence.
Get a clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the
processes in nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

-- Telamon Ventura, California

There is conclusive evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

You can choose to ignore what science says, but you cannot claim that
scientific opinion says something other than what it does. Humans are
causing the majority of recent warming. That is the state of current
best scientific knowledge. This is not opinion. It is documented
fact.

There is nothing about this that concludes that the current warming
trend is due to mankind's activities. Mankind could disappear off the
face of the earth tomorrow and the weather or climate would not change.

Besides the fact that man's activities are easily 2% how do you think
it is possible that mankind is causing climate change? You realize
there are many natural processes that add and subtract CO2 from the
atmosphere that control the gas balance in the atmosphere. At best man
can make temporary changes in a small area but that's about it.

Obviously you have no appreciation for the scale of the weather and the
climate.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the
U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace
Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming
falls under the purview of a peace prize, there's no
question that once it's decided that the prize goes for
that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is
preposterous. Global warming is occurring, and the
majority of that warming is anthropogenic, and this is the
consensus of climate scientists. None of this is
controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for
climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect.
Where have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence.
Get a clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the
processes in nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

-- Telamon Ventura, California

There is conclusive evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

You can choose to ignore what science says, but you cannot claim
that scientific opinion says something other than what it does.
Humans are causing the majority of recent warming. That is the
state of current best scientific knowledge. This is not opinion.
It is documented fact.

Hogwash!

It a religion now. No stopping it.

I see a big problem that is getting worse. People that do not understand
science making outrageous claims get a following.

Witness the retard that was posting here claiming that the towers fell
faster than they should have because there was controlled demolition
that brought them down. Objects fall at a certain rate determined by the
acceleration of gravity. Air friction is the only factor that slows them
down. This was figured out in the middle ages. And then the retard
doesn't think that the fuel fire in the tower acting as a chimney could
not reach temperatures to melt the steel infrastructure so to this they
need a conspiracy theory for it to make sense to them.

It looks like a sickness to me, kind of a adult AADD where someone has
figured out how to program these hapless individuals.

This stupefied behavior used to be confined to politics and social
issues which encompass what people want and statistics which can prove
whatever you want but now has reached into science and recent events.
Michael Moor, Alex Jones, Al Gore, and other loons lead the way with
their improbable and unworkable ideas and still get a following of AADD
individuals.

I was listening to Alex Jones the other night on WWCR and I thought he
was going to breakdown on the spot. He was just screaming into the mike.
Toward the end of the rant it was no words just screaming. Then there
was a commercial break and afterward when he was back on he sounded
perfectly normal. The guy is a natural actor and knows how to manipulate
the audience. He sure had me going for a few minutes.

Priceless entertainment.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

www.devilfinder.com How much global warming is caused by the Sun and
Volcanos.

How do those Kooks and Wackos out there explain previous global warmings
and ice ages that happened many times before Humans ever showed up on
Planet Earth millions of years ago? How do they explain that Mars is
heating up a little bit too?
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 20, 1:51 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,



David wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:58:54 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

You're still going to be under water soon.

If the sea level goes up three feet worst case I'll still be 7 feet
above sea level. Thanks anyway for your concern.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California


Think Pipelines

electrical transmission grids

Water supplies

Highways ( used to transport your Beer )

Think outside the Box . .

sea level goes up three feet..

Do the math . .

OT, I'll be Damned
 

" wrote:

On Oct 20, 1:51 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,



David wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:58:54 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Scandals of Al Gore

Be sure to scroll down and click on the softwar.net site at the
devilfinder thingy.
(Nobel peace prize my arse! Nowadays only Morons and Idiots win the
Nobel prize,,,,, Gore,Arafat,Jimmah Carter, etc)

Solar Flares and Volcanos (do some research on Solar Flares and
Volcanos) (Mars is warming up too) contribute far more to global warming
than humans ever have, and there is the Van Oort Cloud too.On a scale of
0 to whatever, humans have contrbuted almost Zero to global warming.Rest
assured though, when this spate of global warming is done with, there
will be global cooling.Back in the 1950s and 1960s those scientist were
harping about an ice age is over the horizon.
cuhulin

The thing is, the global cooling part was never generally accepted and
was speculative.

Snip

Let me put your mind at ease. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2
is in the 1% to 2% range compared to natural processes that add and
subtract. No brainer don't you think?

You're still going to be under water soon.

If the sea level goes up three feet worst case I'll still be 7 feet
above sea level. Thanks anyway for your concern.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Think Pipelines

electrical transmission grids

Water supplies

Highways ( used to transport your Beer )

Think outside the Box . .

sea level goes up three feet..

Do the math . .

Take your meds. .

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:24:05 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

Pay attention please. The only scientific body making the incredibly
weak claim is the one at the UN. That body is more political than
scientific.

Now wake up if you are able.

And the AAAS. Are they political as well?

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate
change caused by human activities
is occurring now, and it is a growing
threat to society. Accumulating data from
across the globe reveal a wide array of
effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization
of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts
in species ranges, and more. The pace of
change and the evidence of harm have
increased markedly over the last five
years. The time to control greenhouse
gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse
gas, is higher than it has been for at
least 650,000 years. The average temperature
of the Earth is heading for
levels not experienced for millions of
years. Scientific predictions of the
impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases from
fossil fuels and deforestation match
observed changes. As expected, intensification
of droughts, heat waves, floods,
wildfires, and severe storms is occurring,
with a mounting toll on vulnerable
ecosystems and societies. These events
are early warning signs of even more
devastating damage to come, some of
which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate
change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as
the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more
expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of
society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting
innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and deployment
effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away
from technologies that emit greenhouse
gases. Developing clean energy technologies
will provide economic opportunities
and ensure future energy
supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, it is essential that
we develop strategies to adapt to
ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes.
The growing torrent of information presents
a clear message: we are already
experiencing global climate change. It is
time to muster the political will for concerted
action. Stronger leadership at all
levels is needed. The time is now. We
must rise to the challenge. We owe this
to future generations."
-American Association for the Advancement of Science