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.