www.devilfinder.com Tough Punishment Expected For Warhead Errors

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

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


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

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

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

Krugman is the biggest partisan hack at the NYT.

And you are...

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Nobel Peace prize committee decided to ignore their charter.

Fourth Al Gore is a nut case.

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

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

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What Next . . .

My Carbon Footprint Is Bigger Than : Your Carbon Footprint !

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

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

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

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

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

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

Snip

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

You're still going to be under water soon.

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

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?

David wrote:

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

In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

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

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

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

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

Snip

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

You're still going to be under water soon.

How do you define 'soon'?