Burr, I saw Vanessa next door this aftenoon.She used to live over there
with those divorced women.She moved out about a year or so ago and moved
in with her boyfriend, Jake.She has a new boyfriend who is Florida, he
has one of those different colored freaky hair dos sort of like a punk
rock hair do.She said she is going to move back in that house.(next door
to me) I reckon she somehow hoodwinked Jake out of that old car, because
she is driving it now.She used to own a 1987 Oldsmobile.
cuhulin

On Oct 14, 6:55 pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:25 am, msg wrote:



Ross Archer wrote:

snip

Global warming is occurring,

snip

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

Surely you must admit that it depends on who you are and where you live
if this is threat or opportunity. Climate change has been at the
center of evolution and the tectonic plates continue to move. Where
are the discussions regarding _preparing_ for the changes as opposed
to _preventing_ them?

Regards,

Michael

What a novel concept. Preparing for changes that have been happening
since the beginning with time - and, pardon the pun - "going with the
flow" so to speak - or trying to stop them. Maybe you should produce
a movie on that topic. But I doubt the powers that be will want to
award that thinking any kind of mention - since it would do a lot to
quash all the hub bud over the environment.

Still in all, I think we are responsible for our environment - as it
were - we are the keepers, and we should try to pass the world on to
those after us in some sort of decent shape - but I'm not sure humans
can solve all the evoluntionary issues. After all, there are all
sorts of things causing the breakdown to the environment including the
fact that the earth is aging just like the rest of us.

If we didn't have 6.6 billion people on the planet -- which is
arguably too many and very much a modern phenomenon -- people would
just move as some areas formerly habitable fall to drought, and others
that were formerly a bit too cold are now habitable.

We're now in a state where mass migrations of people can't occur -- at
least not across national boundaries, and certainly not without war or
general violent conflict.

So this is a new problem, even if humans have weathered (no pun
intended) ice ages and warm periods before.

As to human role, I believe the science on it. Regardless of whether
humans are causing it, however, some thought should be given to how to
mitigate the effects, if not actually how to engineer a solution to
prevent it from happening.

Is the current climate "perfect"? No. But.... a warmer climate means
more energy in the atmosphere, which means more violent and variable
weather. That, generally, isn't a good thing.

-- ross

Atlanta is in dire straits, waterwise.The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
should stop letting that water out of Lake Lanier.(some of those people
in Atlanta, a City of over three million people, about the size of
Chicago, are thinkng about sueing the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, and
well they should sue them too!) Who cares about those ''endangered''
fish in that Lake? I don't! They can scoop up some of those fishies and
transport them somewhere else! People are more important than some
stupid ''endangered'' fish.
Save Atlanta!
cuhulin

We started getting a little bit of rain here about half an hour ago,
hardly more than enough to make things wet looking outside.Looks like
it's mostly stopped right now.
cuhulin

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.

No, it's not!

None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle.



So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys.



This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

Al is mentally ill.

I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently as
20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of ice a
mile or so thick.

On Oct 13, 12:40 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.

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.

No, it's not!

None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle.



So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys.



This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

Al is mentally ill.

I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently as
20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of ice a
mile or so thick.


Where do you get your information? It may be worth seeking out
higher quality sources, because even trying to pass off how science
works as a primarily political matter looks ridiculous to anyone who
has had any experience in the sciences. The ONE unpardonable sin in
science (besides outright fraud) is to jump to unwarranted conclusions
because of political pressure. No reputable scientist or scientific
body is going to make rash unsupported statements about global warming
being a scientific consensus unless it really is.

Geeze, you can't really buy into that desperate "liberal scientific
conspiracy" crap? What you call liberal bias is actually the fact that
the facts disagree with your ideology, because your ideology is not
based in reality.

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:40 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.

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.

No, it's not!

None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle.



So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys.



This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

Al is mentally ill.

I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently as
20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of ice a
mile or so thick.

Where do you get your information? It may be worth seeking out
higher quality sources, because even trying to pass off how science
works as a primarily political matter looks ridiculous to anyone who
has had any experience in the sciences. The ONE unpardonable sin in
science (besides outright fraud) is to jump to unwarranted conclusions
because of political pressure. No reputable scientist or scientific
body is going to make rash unsupported statements about global warming
being a scientific consensus unless it really is.

Geeze, you can't really buy into that desperate "liberal scientific
conspiracy" crap? What you call liberal bias is actually the fact that
the facts disagree with your ideology, because your ideology is not
based in reality.

Ah, but it is!

"Ross Archer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 13, 12:40 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.

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.

No, it's not!

None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle.



So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys.



This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

Al is mentally ill.

I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently
as
20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of
ice a
mile or so thick.


Where do you get your information? It may be worth seeking out
higher quality sources, because even trying to pass off how science
works as a primarily political matter looks ridiculous to anyone who
has had any experience in the sciences. The ONE unpardonable sin in
science (besides outright fraud) is to jump to unwarranted conclusions
because of political pressure. No reputable scientist or scientific
body is going to make rash unsupported statements about global warming
being a scientific consensus unless it really is.

Geeze, you can't really buy into that desperate "liberal scientific
conspiracy" crap? What you call liberal bias is actually the fact that
the facts disagree with your ideology, because your ideology is not
based in reality.

How many scientists compared to politicians are there in the IPCC? There is
plenty of peer reviewed science stating AGW is bunk. The current "consensus"
is nothing more than mob mentality.

On Oct 12, 10:07 pm, 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.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

RA,

"Climate Change" in a significant manner may in-fact be
'happening' at this Earth-Age -but- Mankind is 'want' to
have any real impact on it -except to- Adapt and Survive.

'climate change' hey i invented that ! ~ RHF

RHF wrote:

On Oct 12, 10:07 pm, 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.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

RA,

"Climate Change" in a significant manner may in-fact be
'happening' at this Earth-Age -but- Mankind is 'want' to
have any real impact on it -except to- Adapt and Survive.

Yep, seems not long ago that the so-called-scientists were predicting global
cooling.

Now, we've a new bunch of kooks, led by a fellow who had to undergo a lot of
therapy because he lost an election. Al is mentally ill.