🚀 go-pugleaf

Helge Weissig wrote:
> Btw - Mr. Bilbray kept a very low profile in the whole debate. 
>I suspect he is just too afraid to fall between chairs.

Facts just don't matter to you, do they?  Bilbray was interviewed a number
of times on both local and national media.  His position was clear and
consistent - Clinton had to honor his promise to come to the budget table
with an honest budget.  Bilbray also voted *for* two CRs and a number of
spending bills, all of which were *vetoed* by the sociopath in the White
House.  

>Mr. Clinton successfully stopped the Republican Congress from harming the 
>environmental legislation (e.g. one of the egregious provisions in the 
>Appropriations bill would have stripped the Environmental Protection Agency
>(EPA) of its authority to protect the nation's wetlands.) 

Demagoguery, phony rhetoric, and outright lies is about all one can expect
from you, isn't it?  Clinton's contempt for private property and his
support for confiscation of individual's homes by arrogant Environmental
Politics Agency officials is right in line with his contempt for honest
government.  But as the last honest Democrat, Bob Kerry, said in last
month's Esquire, "Bill Clinton is a remarkably good liar".  Unlike you.

>Millions of dollars will have to be spent by our children and grandchildren
>to clean up the mess we will leave them with. 

*Billions* have already been spent on the Superfund.  Almost none of it has
been used to clean up real environmental problems.   You see, the lawyers
who buy politicians have been handsomely rewarded with this, their very
own, slush fund.  Why do you think we should give them more?   Your concern
for children and grandchildren would be touching except you have already
demonstrated that you are quite willing to destroy their lives and this
country with debt.

>Your "apres nous la deluge"
>attitude, Mr. Russell, will eventually ruin not only this country, but the
>whole planet. You might not believe in Ozon depletion or global warming, as
>your posts on sci.environment prove which are filled with outdated
>references

When you can't win with honest arguments, engage in more of your admiration
for Joseph Goebbles, no?  Are you referring to my references to last
November's issue of Geophysical Research Letters, or my references to the
SPAN UV/Ozone layer measurements reported in the last couple of months? 
Perhaps you are referring to my documenting the history of the ban on CFCs,
where I have provided citations on the history of lies about skin cancer
that was the only argument used at the 1987 Montreal conference?  Care to
provide any evidence that I have *ever* posted wrong information, dated or
recent, in sci.environment?  What we will get instead, of course, is more
fact-free rhetoric and bad spelling.

>and the same "hatemongering" that you show in this group, but once you have
>to move back to Kansas because California was consumed by the rising levels
>of the Pacific, you will be one sorry little power systems engineer. 

Chuckle.  Rising levels of the Pacific?  From what, the coming Ice Age?  

And as for your personal snooping, thank you for making it clear that you
feel that someone who understands facts and science is such a threat to
your campaign of lies that you have to engage in some sort of espionage. 
But I hope you didn't pay anything for your data, if you did, you got
cheated.  What next, some drive-by shootings?  A little midnight fire
bombing of my house?  Be warned, I am armed with halon fire extinguishers!

It is true I have a couple of engineering degrees.  It is true that I
understand that facts and science and numbers matter.  It is true that I
understand that there was no science behind the ban on CFCs, just a
ludicriously false campaign of fearmongering about millions of deaths from
skin cancer and 'ozone holes over Kennebunkport'.  It is true that I
understand the difference in causes and mortality rates between malignant
melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma.  It is true
that I understand the difference between UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C.  It is true
that I understand what a Dobson unit is.  It is true that I understand that
there have been NO measurements of increased global UV-B. It is true that I
know that those who promote fearmongering about ozone depletion are
actively opposed to conducting such measurements.  It is true that I
understand and believe the scientific theories of ozone depletion, which
all say that global ozone (at least I can spell 'ozone' properly) depletion
from unfettered CFC usage would have amounted to only a few percent over a
century before reaching equilibrium.  It is true that I understand that the
natural variability of the ozone layer is so large (up to 50% a day) that
any CFC-caused ozone depletion will take decades of measurements to see,
even if the *theories* are correct.  It is also true that I understand
Archimedes Principle and why your claim of rising sea levels is so
hilarious. 

To anyone except you and your friends who post their anti-science political
polemics in sci.environment, facts matter.  It is clear that you a follower
of the principles of your fellow leftist Abby Hoffman, "We have got to stop
science and scientific progress. . . Complicated facts and issues - ignore
them. Facts separate people. The enemy has facts and science. You cant
fall into their trap by using the same language. Its not what moves people
to action."

Have a nice, fact-free, day.

Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com