|
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. And as I heard yesterday, the Nobel Committee seems to have abandoned their own criteria as regards what the Prize is actually to be awarded for! Gore is mentally ill, much like Edweenie! |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. "Jimmy Carter" also won a Nobel Peace Prize =so= Al Gore is in 'Perfect' Company. ~ RHF |
OT, I'll be Damned
"dxAce" wrote in message ... 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. And as I heard yesterday, the Nobel Committee seems to have abandoned their own criteria as regards what the Prize is actually to be awarded for! Gore is mentally ill, much like Edweenie! No ****. The NPP is a farce as its awarded to any snake oil salesman that comes along. |
OT, I'll be Damned
The NPP has gone to heck lately.Neither Carter or Gore deserve to win
any Peace prizes. cuhulin |
OT, I'll be Damned
In article ,
dxAce wrote: 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. And as I heard yesterday, the Nobel Committee seems to have abandoned their own criteria as regards what the Prize is actually to be awarded for! Gore is mentally ill, much like Edweenie! Al Gore is as big a nut case as Alex Jones. The Nobel prizes go to the biggest liberals of the year like big Al. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
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 |
OT, I'll be Damned
"Ross Archer" wrote in message ups.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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change Excuuuuussse me Ross BUT, what in the hell is "anthropogenic"? For us country boys could you use a little smaller words, Please? Thank You Very Much, Burr |
OT, I'll be Damned
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 |
OT, I'll be Damned
"Burr" wrote in message ... "Ross Archer" wrote in message ups.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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change Excuuuuussse me Ross BUT, what in the hell is "anthropogenic"? For us country boys could you use a little smaller words, Please? In simplest possible terms, Man caused. anthropo = of or by mankind genic (genisis)= beginning |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
On Oct 12, 10:07 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote: Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!! from CNN -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon. While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of it. The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more controversial than most generally-accepted theories. Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice. This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever faced. So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place. This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar theories that are not accepted. RA, "Climate Change" in a significant manner may in-fact be 'happening' at this Earth-Age -but- Mankind is 'want' to have any real impact on it -except to- Adapt and Survive. 'climate change' hey i invented that ! ~ RHF |
OT, I'll be Damned
On Oct 12, 11:25 pm, 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 MSG, We would not be here Today - except for Climate Change -and- We may not be here in the Future because of Climate Change. 'climate change' - hey i invented that ! ~ RHF |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
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 :o) and that is something to 'think' about ~ RHF |
OT, I'll be Damned
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote: "Burr" wrote in message ... "Ross Archer" wrote in message ups.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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change Excuuuuussse me Ross BUT, what in the hell is "anthropogenic"? For us country boys could you use a little smaller words, Please? In simplest possible terms, Man caused. anthropo = of or by mankind genic (genisis)= beginning It's a modern term for insanity. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. 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 |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. You are. Wrong. Fact: A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements: * American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[24] * US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies' reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[25] * Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[26] * Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[27] * American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers-the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately-can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[28] The idea of global cooling was never more than speculation. To equate it, drawn the level of evidence and knowledge from the 1970's with the vastly greater evidence (especially after global ocean-depth temperature measurements were made in 2003) for global warming, is just preposterous. Nothing less. It's a fact. You cannot possibly read the facts and disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change To summarize: You're not |
OT, I'll be Damned
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! |
OT, I'll be Damned
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! |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
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! |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
"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 :o) 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 |
OT, I'll be Damned WOW
Just think, I started all this!!!!!
Aman, Burr |
OT, I'll be Damned
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). |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
Burr, I saw Vanessa next door this aftenoon.She used to live over there
with those divorced women.She moved out about a year or so ago and moved in with her boyfriend, Jake.She has a new boyfriend who is Florida, he has one of those different colored freaky hair dos sort of like a punk rock hair do.She said she is going to move back in that house.(next door to me) I reckon she somehow hoodwinked Jake out of that old car, because she is driving it now.She used to own a 1987 Oldsmobile. cuhulin |
OT, I'll be Damned
On Oct 13, 2:11 am, 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! Damn kooks. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. Isn't that cool? :) But, I stand by the scientific consensus that there's a problem and have trouble characterizing a pretty solid block of scientists as "kooks" for saying there's a problem. First, even *if* humans aren't causing the warming trend, the fact is the Earth now has about 6.6 billion people on it means that even fairly small disruptions in climate may result in massive starvation, refugee crises, and destabilizing effects anywhere where the carrying capacity of the land is marginal vs. population load. (And this isn't just poor countries. Australia may well be one of the most seriously affected.) We may have it backwards. The issue may not be whether or not humans *are* changing the climate, but rather whether humans *should* be changing the climate. And if the current warming trends continue, perhaps the answer is "yes". Two proposed methods for counteracting a warming trend that seems to be created by greenhouse gas concentration are being discussed. (Probably others, but this is what I've read about): 1. Carbon sequestration. This is basically, sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere (or capturing it where it's generated, at say a power plant) and converting it into a solid form or pump it underground. 2. Reflectivity. One way to cope with increased solar energy being trapped in the atmosphere is to reflect a percent or two of the sunlight back into space. Reflective particles in space, or even over large uninhabited areas, or the upper atmosphere. This could have really neat DX potential. :) These can be thought of as attempts to keep the climate where it is now, even if CO2 emissions continue to increase. There's *way* too much gloom-and-doom about global warming. But not because it's not a problem. It's because we'll work out a solution. Some will be conservation (which often saves money and doesn't impact quality of life at all.) Some will be alternative energy sources. But in the near-term, probably the bulk of it will be a tech-fix. Artificial ionosphere with shiny particles, anyone? :) |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. Human causation of the majority of recent global warming isn't very controversial among climate scientists. They specifically looked for natural causation and concluded that it was "very likely" (over 90% chance) that human activity caused the majority of the observed temperature increase. The way science works is, it converges on the truth as facts accumulate. There's that 10% chance that some as-yet unknown natural phenomenon is responsible, and despite how we understand CO2's role in trapping heat, maybe we have it wrong. I wouldn't want to risk waiting until we're 100% certain of a threat before acting though. :) -- ross |
OT, I'll be Damned
On Oct 14, 6:55 pm, "
wrote: On Oct 13, 1:25 am, msg wrote: Ross Archer wrote: snip Global warming is occurring, snip This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever faced. Surely you must admit that it depends on who you are and where you live if this is threat or opportunity. Climate change has been at the center of evolution and the tectonic plates continue to move. Where are the discussions regarding _preparing_ for the changes as opposed to _preventing_ them? Regards, Michael What a novel concept. Preparing for changes that have been happening since the beginning with time - and, pardon the pun - "going with the flow" so to speak - or trying to stop them. Maybe you should produce a movie on that topic. But I doubt the powers that be will want to award that thinking any kind of mention - since it would do a lot to quash all the hub bud over the environment. Still in all, I think we are responsible for our environment - as it were - we are the keepers, and we should try to pass the world on to those after us in some sort of decent shape - but I'm not sure humans can solve all the evoluntionary issues. After all, there are all sorts of things causing the breakdown to the environment including the fact that the earth is aging just like the rest of us. If we didn't have 6.6 billion people on the planet -- which is arguably too many and very much a modern phenomenon -- people would just move as some areas formerly habitable fall to drought, and others that were formerly a bit too cold are now habitable. We're now in a state where mass migrations of people can't occur -- at least not across national boundaries, and certainly not without war or general violent conflict. So this is a new problem, even if humans have weathered (no pun intended) ice ages and warm periods before. As to human role, I believe the science on it. Regardless of whether humans are causing it, however, some thought should be given to how to mitigate the effects, if not actually how to engineer a solution to prevent it from happening. Is the current climate "perfect"? No. But.... a warmer climate means more energy in the atmosphere, which means more violent and variable weather. That, generally, isn't a good thing. -- ross |
OT, I'll be Damned
Atlanta is in dire straits, waterwise.The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
should stop letting that water out of Lake Lanier.(some of those people in Atlanta, a City of over three million people, about the size of Chicago, are thinkng about sueing the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, and well they should sue them too!) Who cares about those ''endangered'' fish in that Lake? I don't! They can scoop up some of those fishies and transport them somewhere else! People are more important than some stupid ''endangered'' fish. Save Atlanta! cuhulin |
OT, I'll be Damned
We started getting a little bit of rain here about half an hour ago,
hardly more than enough to make things wet looking outside.Looks like it's mostly stopped right now. cuhulin |
OT, I'll be Damned
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. Human causation of the majority of recent global warming isn't very controversial among climate scientists. They specifically looked for natural causation and concluded that it was "very likely" (over 90% chance) that human activity caused the majority of the observed temperature increase. The way science works is, it converges on the truth as facts accumulate. There's that 10% chance that some as-yet unknown natural phenomenon is responsible, and despite how we understand CO2's role in trapping heat, maybe we have it wrong. I wouldn't want to risk waiting until we're 100% certain of a threat before acting though. :) Then you'd better turn off your electricity, stop driving, and heck, stop doing most anything. YOU can make a difference. Act now. And, maybe you can persuade Al to stop flying. |
OT, I'll be Damned
"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. |
OT, I'll be Damned
"Ross Archer" wrote in message ups.com... 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. You are. Wrong. So I guess all these folks are crackpots. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706a.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../18/wsun18.xml You're obviously a disciple in the Church of GW. Open you mind man. |
OT, I'll be Damned
Watching the Travel channel.Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations.Puerto
Rico.Anthony went walking around out in the woods in Puerto Rico.He saw some little dogs out there, they started following him around.Anthony said, The legend of the Chupracabra, space aliens or dogs?, you decide. Tell those two KOOKS, Art Bell and George Noory, Anthony Bourdain knows what Chupracabras are.They are harmless little dogs running around in Puerto Rico. cuhulin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com