dxAce wrote:

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:19 am, dxAce wrote:
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.

Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

Yep, it's you kooks!

And Ross, by being on the computer you're obviously increasing your carbon footprint.
Knock it off, or Al will get you!

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!

On Oct 13, 1:49 am, dxAce wrote:
Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:19 am, dxAce wrote:
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.

Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

Yep, it's you kooks!

If believing the majority of experts in the field makes one a lunatic,
wow, we've just landed in upside-down world.

If believing that global scientific consensus is a political process
isn't nutty, I don't know what is.

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:49 am, dxAce wrote:
Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:19 am, dxAce wrote:
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.

Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

Yep, it's you kooks!

If believing the majority of experts in the field makes one a lunatic,
wow, we've just landed in upside-down world.

Sorry Ross, it's your world that is upside-down, not mine.

Now please, get off that computer and reduce your carbon footprint. And turn off those
lights as well and just sit there and quake in fear!

Damn kooks.

dxAce wrote:

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:49 am, dxAce wrote:
Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:19 am, dxAce wrote:
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.

Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

Yep, it's you kooks!

If believing the majority of experts in the field makes one a lunatic,
wow, we've just landed in upside-down world.

Sorry Ross, it's your world that is upside-down, not mine.

Now please, get off that computer and reduce your carbon footprint. And turn off those
lights as well and just sit there and quake in fear!

And please, write to your pal Al and tell him to stop flying around in that jet using more
fuel in a day than I'll probably use all year!

Get him to lead by example!

Damn kooks.

"RHF" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 12, 10:29 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Proud To Say - I Voted For The SOB ! -aka- Son Of Bush )

and that is something to 'think' about ~ RHF
.


So you voted for Bush?
I did but there was no other choose that I would vote for!

Burr

Just think, I started all this!!!!!


Aman,

Burr

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:43:13 GMT, Telamon
wrote:



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

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.


Is there enough proof to justify an attempt to reverse the effects?

Yes and no.

A prudent society should have acted...just in case the anthropogenic
theory is valid. But I think it's way too late. Your precious
capitalism is obsolete, as you (I) are (am).

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.