OT, I'll be Damned
 

Ice Ages come and go.At some time in the future, there WILL be another
Ice Age coming along.Will that be blamed on Human beings too?
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
David wrote:

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?

Yes.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:52:00 -0700, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:

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?

Yes.

Are you?

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
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
.


Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
after the application of REASON.

What, in the absence of absolute proof, would you use to establish
what's true? Reading tea leaves? Using divining rods?
Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based on
evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact. I don't know what you're
using, but it's inferior.

-- ross

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Oct 21, 11:24 am, Telamon
wrote:
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
That's not true. I posted MANY independent sources, which you refuse
to read because you enjoy your ignorance.
Remain ignorant. I am through with such a willfully ignorant
bubblehead.


You are willfully ignorant. I am done with you.

(OT) : The Save Earth Serenity Prayer" {Why Be Damned . . . When You Can Be Blessed ?}
 

On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, 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.

This is a Skewed Opinion* based on a 'Selective' Reality.
* Opinion -based on- Half-Truths {Factoring-Out The Unknowns}.
.
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
.

I'm glad you know so much better than actual scientists.
.
Two 'separate' things Climate Change -and- Global Warming.
.
Climate Change : What the Earth Does on it's own
along with a lot of help from this Solar System. 98%+
.
Global Warming : The Warming of the Earth Due To
The Activities of Mankind. 2%
.
The Global Warmer's Business Plan Calls For The Monitization
of Pollution - Phase One is Establishing "Carbon Credits" :
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 'Operative Word' in your SWAG is 'Observed" meaning
What We Know About and Can Account For . . .
.
Most of Climate Change involves a Process that Mankind
in it's Recorded History has not Experienced. Thus It Is
Un-Know and At Present Can Not Be Accounted For . . .
.
Carl Sagan -Quotes-
"Somewhere, Something Incredible Is Waiting To Be Known."
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_are_star/156145.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/sagan.htm
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
.
"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.

=IF= We can Survive the 'Little' Ice Age
http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm
-Then Surely- We can Survive this 'Little' Hot Spot of Nature.

climate change is good and natural :
we love you mother earth ~ RHF

'climate change' hey i invented that ! ~ RHF
.
(OT) : The Save Earth Serenity Prayer"
{Why Be Damned . . . When You Can Be Blessed ?}

Once Again Here Is : The Save Earth Serenity Prayer :
.
The Mental Illness of "Global Warming" is Cooking Mankind's
Brains with Fear and causing them to develop Al-Gore-A-Phobia :
.
The only know 'Cure' is to Accept the Fact that Mankind is
Helpless to Effect Climate Change and that Climate Change
'Exists' with-or-without Mankind.
.
mother earth protect us in this our hour of need
and help us to adapt to climate change - omen ~ RHF
.
CopyRight © 2007 by RHF - All Rights Reserved.
.
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
 

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:42:46 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:52:00 -0700, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:

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?

Yes.

Are you?

Not when it comes to an issue such as this.

It's not an "issue". It's a situation which must be addressed.
Time's a wastin'. 12 feet above mean is how many feet above high
tide?

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:19:31 -0700, Ross Archer
wrote:


That's not true. I posted MANY independent sources, which you refuse
to read because you enjoy your ignorance.
Remain ignorant. I am through with such a willfully ignorant
bubblehead.


You are willfully ignorant. I am done with you.

C'mon, the guy volunteered for his lobotomy, give him SOME credit.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
David wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:42:46 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:52:00 -0700, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:

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?

Yes.

Are you?

Not when it comes to an issue such as this.

It's not an "issue". It's a situation which must be addressed.
Time's a wastin'. 12 feet above mean is how many feet above high
tide?

Baloney 12 feet. Try 2 to 3 feet worst case.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 21, 11:24 am, Telamon
wrote:
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
That's not true. I posted MANY independent sources, which you refuse
to read because you enjoy your ignorance.
Remain ignorant. I am through with such a willfully ignorant
bubblehead.


You are willfully ignorant. I am done with you.

You are the useful idiot not me.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
David wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:19:31 -0700, Ross Archer
wrote:


That's not true. I posted MANY independent sources, which you refuse
to read because you enjoy your ignorance.
Remain ignorant. I am through with such a willfully ignorant
bubblehead.


You are willfully ignorant. I am done with you.

C'mon, the guy volunteered for his lobotomy, give him SOME credit.

Don't confuse me with yourself who opted for the chemical lobotomy.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
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
.


Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
after the application of REASON.

What, in the absence of absolute proof, would you use to establish
what's true? Reading tea leaves? Using divining rods?
Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based on
evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact. I don't know what you're
using, but it's inferior.

Try to understand your place in this. You are being used. Do you
understand that you are being used by socialists to promote their agenda?

Look carefully at who is making these assertions. Look at the evidence
they purport supports their position. Notice they are not making their
case "scientifically" but instead make assumptions " leaps of faith
actually" and expect you to "believe" these assertions. Again, there is
no Proof according to logical, scientific method that "proves" man is
even making a significant contribution to climate change.

Look at the evidence they do not provide that man is "responsible."

Look at past climate change when man made CO2 was not a factor.

Look at what is happening currently on planets in the rest of the solar
system where man is not a factor.

Think about these subjects and don't parrot.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

Telamon wrote:


Try to understand your place in this. You are being used. Do you
understand that you are being used by socialists

LOL at an un-repentant Cold War relic who sees a commie under every
rock. Maybe you can dig up old 'Tail-Gunner' Joe McCarthy and explain it
to him. You may get more sympathy...

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:13:18 -0700, Telamon
wrote:


tide?

Baloney 12 feet. Try 2 to 3 feet worst case.

I'm talking about the cushion between the ocean and your lawn.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:15:16 -0700, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:19:31 -0700, Ross Archer
wrote:


That's not true. I posted MANY independent sources, which you refuse
to read because you enjoy your ignorance.
Remain ignorant. I am through with such a willfully ignorant
bubblehead.


You are willfully ignorant. I am done with you.

C'mon, the guy volunteered for his lobotomy, give him SOME credit.

Don't confuse me with yourself who opted for the chemical lobotomy.

Huh? I don't drink.

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:30:33 -0700, Telamon
wrote:



Try to understand your place in this. You are being used. Do you
understand that you are being used by socialists to promote their agenda?

Look carefully at who is making these assertions. Look at the evidence
they purport supports their position. Notice they are not making their
case "scientifically" but instead make assumptions " leaps of faith
actually" and expect you to "believe" these assertions. Again, there is
no Proof according to logical, scientific method that "proves" man is
even making a significant contribution to climate change.

Look at the evidence they do not provide that man is "responsible."

Look at past climate change when man made CO2 was not a factor.

Look at what is happening currently on planets in the rest of the solar
system where man is not a factor.

Think about these subjects and don't parrot.

You are being used by perverted capitalists who have no agenda, other
than making money as possible and maintaining their power base (pun
intended). Personally, I think it's over, except for the lovely
chaos. You dropped the ball 30 nyears ago, when you could have done
some good.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:50:44 -0700, RHF
wrote:

On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- 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
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.

Wouldn't it be prudent to prepare for the worst just in case? What
harm would it do?

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Oct 25, 7:00 am, David wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:50:44 -0700, RHF
wrote:





On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- 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
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.

- Wouldn't it be prudent to prepare for the worst just in case?

Understanding that Climate Change may be in-fact be happening at
this point in this present Epoch in the Life of a Planet {Earth Age}
is good for Mankind. - http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/history.htm

With this Knowledge Mankind can forward in our Planning and
Adapt to the Changes* caused by the Earth's Weather getting
Warmer or even Colder.
* A Hundred or better a Thousand Years will tell Us better just
what may be happening.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/time.html .
{Hysteria about "Global Warming" Serves No One Except
the One World Control Freaks.}

Adapting to these Climate Changes is good because it will help
the majority of Mankind to Survive and Adjust to a 'New" Earth.

- What harm would it do?

Yielding to the Fear Mongering of "Global Warming" and the attempt
to use this Fear as an Means-of-Control of the Masses to Dictate
"How People Will Live In The Future" according to the word of the
Almighty AL GORE - Is Not The Answer [.]

The Monitization of Pollution {Carbon Credits} is Not The Answer.
Just a Scheme to Gain Economic Control Over World-Wide Power
Generation and Global Industrial Production and Method Taxation
and Limitations on All Human Activity.

Common Sense -IS- The Answer : And Common Sense Says :
1st - We Understand
2nd - We Adapt
3rd - We Survive

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of "Global Warming" is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Looking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.
* Understanding The Truth About Climate Change.
* Adapting To The Realities Of Climate Change.
* Mankind's Survivial Through Climate Change And Beyond.

common sense - makes sense ~ RHF

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of GlobalWarming
 

Well, I will tell y'all what.The last few days and nights right here in
Jackson,Mississippi,,, the weather has been rainy and wet and cloudy and
cold.Right now, it is still cloudy and cold outside, not raining though,
right now.So, where is that confounded ''global warming''? Doggy
(Blueberry) is sleeping up under a wool blanket on her couch, snoreing
her arse off.You just know when a dog is feeling cold,,,,,, It's COLD!
cuhulin

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of GlobalWarming
 

I ain'ts worrit about no global warming.Maybe I will (I need to get up
and go pee anyway,,, Gals) jack the floor funaces theromstats up a few
more notches.Some dredging is fixiin to get started somewhere along the
Missisippi Gulf Coast for some ships bringin in buku gas.(yesterdays
www.clarionledger.com rag, Business section,, Clarion Liar) and some
dredigin is going to happen over yonder in Blackberry Bayou, near
Hackberry, whatever they call that Cajun place) in Louisiana, wayyyyyyyy
over yonder near the Lonestar Republic of TEXAS.
www.cryptome.org.index.html
www.devilfinder.com Song Texas,,,,
Song Mississippi,,,,,, Song Cajunland
cuhulin

OT, I'll be Damned
 

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

Telamon wrote:


Try to understand your place in this. You are being used. Do you
understand that you are being used by socialists

LOL at an un-repentant Cold War relic who sees a commie under every
rock. Maybe you can dig up old 'Tail-Gunner' Joe McCarthy and explain it
to him. You may get more sympathy...

McCarthy was slandered by commie pinko people like you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

In article ,
David wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:50:44 -0700, RHF
wrote:

On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- 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
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.

Wouldn't it be prudent to prepare for the worst just in case? What
harm would it do?

Money, money, and more money. Oh yeah, and the socialist commies get
more power by running your life into the ground.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

OT, I'll be Damned
 

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:14:42 -0700, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

Telamon wrote:


Try to understand your place in this. You are being used. Do you
understand that you are being used by socialists

LOL at an un-repentant Cold War relic who sees a commie under every
rock. Maybe you can dig up old 'Tail-Gunner' Joe McCarthy and explain it
to him. You may get more sympathy...

McCarthy was slandered by commie pinko people like you.

McCarthy was a junkie.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:44:30 -0700, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:50:44 -0700, RHF
wrote:

On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- 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
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.

Wouldn't it be prudent to prepare for the worst just in case? What
harm would it do?

Money, money, and more money. Oh yeah, and the socialist commies get
more power by running your life into the ground.

You're still fighting the last war. Money is obsolete (or soon will
be). Deficits don't matter.

If we spent on real humanitarian aid what we spend on military
adventures we'd win the moral high ground in an instant. No one would
dare criticise the rich nation saving millions of lives.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Oct 25, 1:31 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- 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
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.

I heard a climatologist on WGN some months ago. He was talking with
the host about global warming. And he said, if you look at the data, it
does, indeed make quite the dramatic point. And he quoted facts and
figures that made quite the case. Most of which were used in Gore's case.

But if you stepped back a frame, he went on, you started to see that
scientists today are looking at a snapshot, a highly cropped snapshot
without context.

NOAA figures show that we are NOT in an unprecedented period of
global warming. That the peak year so far, in recorded data is 1934.
Highest global temperature on record.

That geological data gathered through core samples have revealed that
it was far warmer in the 13th through 17 centuries than it is now. Or
will be even if current projections are accurate.

And he went on with other data.

And then he paused and explained that even if the data are accurate,
a far bigger indicator of global climatic trends agricultural. Which
crops grow where, and which don't. And the most easily observed, and
most accurately indicative is where wine is grown.

Wine vineyards only grow in specific conditions, one of which is
average temperature.

And wine vineyards have been slowly moving south for centuries.

At one time, England had a thriving wine economy. Wine grew as far
north as Scotland, and exports were highly prized worldwide. Many of the
French stocks were born of English roots.

Leif Ericson's expedition reported enormous wine vineyards growing in
north of Nova Scotia. A German in his party, named Tyrker, left the
encampment and wandered into this northern wine country for months. When
discovered by other members of the party, he was drunk. So vast was the
region of wine grapes, they call the place Vinland.

Today, there is little wine grown in Canada. Due to the unfavorable
cool temperatures.

The climatologist concluded, that if you look at the history of where
wine grows on this planet, you'd see a clear pattern of overall cooling.
Which is what you'd expect after the recession of the glaciers at the
end of an ice age (Quaternary) as processes spike global temperatures,
which trigger the buffer mechanisms that result in gradual reduction of
temperatures.

Overall, he said, a cyclical process. And a natural cyclical process
at that. But cyclical heating and cooling, in conjunction with natural
entropy, results in overall global cooling. Which is what we've seen
over the last 700 years.

As for what's happening right now? We've seen an overall increase in
the output of the sun. Temporary temperature spike. That will fade. More
importantly, studies recently conducted in Yellowstone and environs
revealed that the hunting to near extinction of wolves in the park did
more to damage the environment than burning it to the ground. By
removing large carnivores, large herbivore populations were allowed to
mushroom, resulting in a defoliation of large areas of the park. Aspen
trees disappeared almost in totality. Which had an astonishingly large
environmental and climatological impact. By reintroducing wolves into
the park 5 years ago, herbivore populations have abated, and foliage has
returned, including Aspen trees. Rainfall patterns have returned to
previous states. And while some wolves have to be taken as they get out
of the park and endanger surrounding human settlements, the wholesale
slaughter of wolves has NOT begun. And natural selection has continued
unabated. With highly positive results.

Which suggests that any man made impact on global climate change is
not by shift in the carbon footprint, but by the wholesale slaughter of
species without reason. Small takings are negligible. The hunt to
extinction...that's another matter.

Moderation in all things would then appear to be the key to survival.

Would be the key to maintaining a healthy environment.

Pre Columbian natives knew this for centuries before us. But this is
a problem created, realized and solved. Effective impact-zero.

But just look at the gradual southern migration of wine countries on
this planet. That can ONLY happen in conditions of global cooling.

This guy was dismissed by several callers as a heretic who deserved
to have his funding revoked.

Which is typical of religious zealots: You don't like the opposing
viewpoint-silence it.

The truth does not require, nor appreciate, such tactics. Only a
politically expedient truth needs the silence of the opposition.

The science is not settled. But the moral obligation is clear: Let
cooler heads prevail and resist kneejerk responses which will have long
term global consequences.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DPM - Some good valid Info and a nice read. ~ RHF

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Oct 26, 7:35 am, David wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:44:30 -0700, Telamon





wrote:
In article ,
David wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:50:44 -0700, RHF
wrote:

On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- 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
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.

Wouldn't it be prudent to prepare for the worst just in case? What
harm would it do?

Money, money, and more money. Oh yeah, and the socialist commies get
more power by running your life into the ground.

You're still fighting the last war. Money is obsolete (or soon will
be). Deficits don't matter.

If we spent on real humanitarian aid what we spend on military
adventures we'd win the moral high ground in an instant.

- No one would dare criticise the rich nation saving millions of
lives.

David,

Castro would and any Dictator or Regime that 'wants'
Control Over the Masses for their own personal Power
and Political and/or Financial Gain.

~ RHF

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:47:34 -0700, RHF
wrote:



David,

Castro would and any Dictator or Regime that 'wants'
Control Over the Masses for their own personal Power
and Political and/or Financial Gain.

~ RHF
.
Castro? WTF?

Say what you want about the commies; they kept the radical Muslims in
check.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:30:55 -0800, David wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:47:34 -0700, RHF
wrote:



David,

Castro would and any Dictator or Regime that 'wants'
Control Over the Masses for their own personal Power
and Political and/or Financial Gain.

~ RHF
.
Castro? WTF?

Say what you want about the commies; they kept the radical Muslims in
check.

Ahh, no - they kept them in Chechnya. And of course when the US uses
those tactics it's not keeping them in check it is considered an
unwarranted incursion. No matter what topic you always are against
the US and for anybody else - or so it seems to me anyway. One thing
for sure Rickets.........you are a source of humor. Now go back to
smoking banana peels and dreams of being Timothy Leary.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:31:52 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

RHF wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- 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
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.



I heard a climatologist on WGN some months ago. He was talking with
the host about global warming. And he said, if you look at the data, it
does, indeed make quite the dramatic point. And he quoted facts and
figures that made quite the case. Most of which were used in Gore's case.

But if you stepped back a frame, he went on, you started to see that
scientists today are looking at a snapshot, a highly cropped snapshot
without context.

NOAA figures show that we are NOT in an unprecedented period of
global warming. That the peak year so far, in recorded data is 1934.
Highest global temperature on record.

That geological data gathered through core samples have revealed that
it was far warmer in the 13th through 17 centuries than it is now. Or
will be even if current projections are accurate.

And he went on with other data.

And then he paused and explained that even if the data are accurate,
a far bigger indicator of global climatic trends agricultural. Which
crops grow where, and which don't. And the most easily observed, and
most accurately indicative is where wine is grown.

Wine vineyards only grow in specific conditions, one of which is
average temperature.

And wine vineyards have been slowly moving south for centuries.

At one time, England had a thriving wine economy. Wine grew as far
north as Scotland, and exports were highly prized worldwide. Many of the
French stocks were born of English roots.

Leif Ericson's expedition reported enormous wine vineyards growing in
north of Nova Scotia. A German in his party, named Tyrker, left the
encampment and wandered into this northern wine country for months. When
discovered by other members of the party, he was drunk. So vast was the
region of wine grapes, they call the place Vinland.

Today, there is little wine grown in Canada. Due to the unfavorable
cool temperatures.

The climatologist concluded, that if you look at the history of where
wine grows on this planet, you'd see a clear pattern of overall cooling.
Which is what you'd expect after the recession of the glaciers at the
end of an ice age (Quaternary) as processes spike global temperatures,
which trigger the buffer mechanisms that result in gradual reduction of
temperatures.

Overall, he said, a cyclical process. And a natural cyclical process
at that. But cyclical heating and cooling, in conjunction with natural
entropy, results in overall global cooling. Which is what we've seen
over the last 700 years.

As for what's happening right now? We've seen an overall increase in
the output of the sun. Temporary temperature spike. That will fade. More
importantly, studies recently conducted in Yellowstone and environs
revealed that the hunting to near extinction of wolves in the park did
more to damage the environment than burning it to the ground. By
removing large carnivores, large herbivore populations were allowed to
mushroom, resulting in a defoliation of large areas of the park. Aspen
trees disappeared almost in totality. Which had an astonishingly large
environmental and climatological impact. By reintroducing wolves into
the park 5 years ago, herbivore populations have abated, and foliage has
returned, including Aspen trees. Rainfall patterns have returned to
previous states. And while some wolves have to be taken as they get out
of the park and endanger surrounding human settlements, the wholesale
slaughter of wolves has NOT begun. And natural selection has continued
unabated. With highly positive results.


Which suggests that any man made impact on global climate change is
not by shift in the carbon footprint, but by the wholesale slaughter of
species without reason. Small takings are negligible. The hunt to
extinction...that's another matter.

Moderation in all things would then appear to be the key to survival.

Would be the key to maintaining a healthy environment.

Pre Columbian natives knew this for centuries before us. But this is
a problem created, realized and solved. Effective impact-zero.


But just look at the gradual southern migration of wine countries on
this planet. That can ONLY happen in conditions of global cooling.

This guy was dismissed by several callers as a heretic who deserved
to have his funding revoked.

Which is typical of religious zealots: You don't like the opposing
viewpoint-silence it.

The truth does not require, nor appreciate, such tactics. Only a
politically expedient truth needs the silence of the opposition.


The science is not settled. But the moral obligation is clear: Let
cooler heads prevail and resist kneejerk responses which will have long
term global consequences.





Awesome Peter - it's good to see somebody bringing some sense to the
table.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:33:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:30:55 -0800, David wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:47:34 -0700, RHF
wrote:



David,

Castro would and any Dictator or Regime that 'wants'
Control Over the Masses for their own personal Power
and Political and/or Financial Gain.

~ RHF
.
Castro? WTF?

Say what you want about the commies; they kept the radical Muslims in
check.

Ahh, no - they kept them in Chechnya. And of course when the US uses
those tactics it's not keeping them in check it is considered an
unwarranted incursion. No matter what topic you always are against
the US and for anybody else - or so it seems to me anyway. One thing
for sure Rickets.........you are a source of humor. Now go back to
smoking banana peels and dreams of being Timothy Leary.

The USA has no radical Muslim problem in its hemisphere. We created
Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and then we told them to get screwed.

When the USA is wrong I'm not afraid to say so. That's step one of
solving the problem. Denial don't fix anything.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Oct 28, 7:48 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:33:03 -0700, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:30:55 -0800, David wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:47:34 -0700, RHF
wrote:

David,

Castro would and any Dictator or Regime that 'wants'
Control Over the Masses for their own personal Power
and Political and/or Financial Gain.

~ RHF
.
Castro? WTF?

Say what you want about the commies; they kept the radical Muslims in
check.

Ahh, no - they kept them in Chechnya. And of course when the US uses
those tactics it's not keeping them in check it is considered an
unwarranted incursion. No matter what topic you always are against
the US and for anybody else - or so it seems to me anyway. One thing
for sure Rickets.........you are a source of humor. Now go back to
smoking banana peels and dreams of being Timothy Leary.

The USA has no radical Muslim problem in its hemisphere. We created
Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and then we told them to get screwed.

When the USA is wrong I'm not afraid to say so. That's step one of
solving the problem. Denial don't fix anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DaviD - And when The-Rest-of-the-World is WRONG !
- - - Why Are You Silent ? - imwtk ~ RHF

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

RHF wrote:

On Oct 28, 7:48 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:33:03 -0700, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:30:55 -0800, David wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:47:34 -0700, RHF
wrote:

David,

Castro would and any Dictator or Regime that 'wants'
Control Over the Masses for their own personal Power
and Political and/or Financial Gain.

~ RHF
.
Castro? WTF?

Say what you want about the commies; they kept the radical Muslims in
check.

Ahh, no - they kept them in Chechnya. And of course when the US uses
those tactics it's not keeping them in check it is considered an
unwarranted incursion. No matter what topic you always are against
the US and for anybody else - or so it seems to me anyway. One thing
for sure Rickets.........you are a source of humor. Now go back to
smoking banana peels and dreams of being Timothy Leary.

The USA has no radical Muslim problem in its hemisphere. We created
Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and then we told them to get screwed.

When the USA is wrong I'm not afraid to say so. That's step one of
solving the problem. Denial don't fix anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DaviD - And when The-Rest-of-the-World is WRONG !
- - - Why Are You Silent ? - imwtk ~ RHF

As always, it's the drugs.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of GlobalWarming
 

You know what? About eighteen years ago, I was sittin in the food court
at Metro Mall www.metromalljackson.com and a very pretty woman
sat own by me.She said she was doing inventory at the store she worked
at.(Dillards) I was too chicken to try her out.
cuhulin

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of GlobalWarming
 

South Florida, be Damned!!!! I own a L shaped half acre of land in North
Florida.Take Hoover Road up North about three miles/three (North of
Interlachen) and a half miles.Take a right on Pine Tree Road, (Drive,
whatever it is) right there between Drexel and Lincoln.That's my piece
of Florida ''Paradise''
cuhulin

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:11:42 -0700, RHF
wrote:

On Oct 28, 7:48 am, David wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:33:03 -0700, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:30:55 -0800, David wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:47:34 -0700, RHF
wrote:

David,

Castro would and any Dictator or Regime that 'wants'
Control Over the Masses for their own personal Power
and Political and/or Financial Gain.

~ RHF
.
Castro? WTF?

Say what you want about the commies; they kept the radical Muslims in
check.

Ahh, no - they kept them in Chechnya. And of course when the US uses
those tactics it's not keeping them in check it is considered an
unwarranted incursion. No matter what topic you always are against
the US and for anybody else - or so it seems to me anyway. One thing
for sure Rickets.........you are a source of humor. Now go back to
smoking banana peels and dreams of being Timothy Leary.

The USA has no radical Muslim problem in its hemisphere. We created
Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and then we told them to get screwed.

When the USA is wrong I'm not afraid to say so. That's step one of
solving the problem. Denial don't fix anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DaviD - And when The-Rest-of-the-World is WRONG !
- - - Why Are You Silent ? - imwtk ~ RHF
.
The rest of the world is none of my business. We are to lead by
example. Right now we are piggies.

Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of GlobalWarming
 

(OT) Missing Nukes: Treason Of The Highest Order.
www.globalresearch.ca

I Guarantee you, without a Secret Clearance, like I had, Nobody could
get in SL 60 Charley Battery near Pacific,Missouri.
cuhulin