🚀 go-pugleaf

Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:

>Record lows across the Southland!
>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.

 Making up a stupid name for a single post.
 How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?

 In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
deserve much credit for making it happen.

 One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago. 

 Most of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record.
 It's going to get hotter. 

"bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>
>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>
> Making up a stupid name for a single post.
> How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>
> In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
> Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
> introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
> deserve much credit for making it happen.

Gore said he invented the internet. He also said he invented Global warming 
and has a house 20 times bigger than the average American.  Gore also said 
he was elected and not Bush. 

"bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>
>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>
> Making up a stupid name for a single post.
> How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>
> In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
> Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
> introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
> deserve much credit for making it happen.
>
> One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
> such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
> and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.

That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming theory --  
there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of global warming. If 
it's extremely cold, it because of global warming causing the extremes.

When I was growing up in the 70's, there was just as much panic cause by 
scientists over global cooling.

> Most of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record.
> It's going to get hotter.
> 

"Noman Lapetos" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:461a589e$0$97229$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
> news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>
>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>
>> Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>> How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>>
>> In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
>> Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
>> introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
>> deserve much credit for making it happen.
>
> Gore said he invented the internet. He also said he invented Global 
> warming and has a house 20 times bigger than the average American.  Gore 
> also said he was elected and not Bush.

No. He did not say he invented it. He said he helped to create the 
intitiatves in Congress. Oddly enough, the men who DID create it give Gore 
credit.

Go back and look at the numbers in the popular vote between Bush and Gore. 
Last time I checked 'em, Gore's number was still larger than Bush's. 
Granted, he lost the electoral college, but it bears repeating that the Bush 
campaign thought the result would wind up exactly the opposite, i.e. that 
Bush would win the popular and lose the electoral, and had a plan in place 
almost identical to what Gore tried, including a protracted court battle to 
overturn the result.

As for his home being "20 times bigger than the average American," Google 
and Snopes are your friends.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Neither the square footage nor the energy usage figures seems to come to "20 
times bigger."

Larger? You betcha!

But neither Bush nor Gore is hardly the "average American." For better or 
worse, both have been elected to two of the highest offices in the land, and 
at least one of them has been pretty successful at growing the traditional 
family businesses and bettering his financial position. The other basically 
succeeded at precisely one of the several business ventures he tried and 
even managed to lose money in the oil business during some pretty good times 
for that business. 

On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> > Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>
> >>Record lows across the Southland!
> >>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
> >>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>
> > Making up a stupid name for a single post.
> > How long will a...@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>
> > In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
> > Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
> > introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
> > deserve much credit for making it happen.
>
> > One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
> > such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
> > and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
>
> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming theory --
> there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of global warming. If
> it's extremely cold, it because of global warming causing the extremes.
>
> When I was growing up in the 70's, there was just as much panic cause by
> scientists over global cooling.
>

And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
unaccountable.

Great fun!

On 4/9/07 10:16 AM, in article
461a589e$0$97229$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net, "Noman Lapetos"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> 
> "bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message
> news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>> 
>>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>> 
>> Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>> How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>> 
>> In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
>> Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
>> introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
>> deserve much credit for making it happen.
> 
> Gore said he invented the internet. He also said he invented Global warming
> and has a house 20 times bigger than the average American.  Gore also said
> he was elected and not Bush.
> 
> 
Don't forget that "Love Story" was based on the Gores. LOL!!!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

<Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov> wrote in message 
news:Xns990D3E026729BrvgIII@216.196.97.136...
>
> Record lows across the Southland!
>
> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>
> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>
> LMAO!

WHACK!!!
 Stupid Rush cum slurpers.....

IMPRISON ALL TRAITORS TO AMERICA!!!!
> 

"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>
>> >>Record lows across the Southland!
>> >>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>> >>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>
>> > Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>> > How long will a...@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>>
>> > In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
>> > Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
>> > introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
>> > deserve much credit for making it happen.
>>
>> > One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
>> > such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
>> > and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
>>
>> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming 
>> theory --
>> there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of global warming. 
>> If
>> it's extremely cold, it because of global warming causing the extremes.
>>
>> When I was growing up in the 70's, there was just as much panic cause by
>> scientists over global cooling.
>>
>
> And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
> You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
> unaccountable.
>
> Great fun!

You're right, you are completely wrong and utterly unaccountable... ;)

Here's an example from Newsweek, 1975: 
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

"Noman Lapetos" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:461a589e$0$97229$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
> news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>
>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>
>> Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>> How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>>
>> In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
>> Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
>> introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
>> deserve much credit for making it happen.
>
> Gore said he invented the internet. He also said he invented Global 
> warming and has a house 20 times bigger than the average American.  Gore 
> also said he was elected and not Bush.

WHACK!!! Truely ignernt attempt at a smear there, deathcult dumbshit.

Go back to snowballing the Rush cum with yer dead-enders down in the bunker:
 intelligent thinking people know better than swallowing that poison....

 YOU SWALLOWED THE BIG LIES WHOLE, AND BEGGED FOR MORE..... 

pitchforks and torches wrote:
> <Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov> wrote in message 
> news:Xns990D3E026729BrvgIII@216.196.97.136...
>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>
>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>
>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>
>> LMAO!
> 
> WHACK!!!
>  Stupid Rush cum slurpers.....
> 
> IMPRISON ALL TRAITORS TO AMERICA!!!!
> 
> 
I say Son, just settle down, just take it easy!!!!  Now go take your 
Thorazine and everything will be alright!  And be sure to don't miss the
milk and cookies they left for you! ;)  And watch the nice film too! - 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467

Foghorn Leghorn
http://www.myspace.com/isayboy

On Apr 9, 12:22 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "mh" <hobrats...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >> > Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>
> >> >>Record lows across the Southland!
> >> >>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
> >> >>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>
> >> > Making up a stupid name for a single post.
> >> > How long will a...@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>
> >> > In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
> >> > Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
> >> > introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
> >> > deserve much credit for making it happen.
>
> >> > One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
> >> > such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
> >> > and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
>
> >> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
> >> theory --
> >> there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of global warming.
> >> If
> >> it's extremely cold, it because of global warming causing the extremes.
>
> >> When I was growing up in the 70's, there was just as much panic cause by
> >> scientists over global cooling.
>
> > And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
> > You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
> > unaccountable.
>
> > Great fun!
>
> You're right, you are completely wrong and utterly unaccountable... ;)
>

Sometimes wrong.

Never unaccountable.



> Here's an example from Newsweek, 1975:http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

"Foghorn Leghorn" <cockofthewalk@ri.rooster.com> wrote in message 
news:KqvSh.21119$tD2.14570@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> pitchforks and torches wrote:
>> <Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov> wrote in message 
>> news:Xns990D3E026729BrvgIII@216.196.97.136...
>>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>>
>>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>
>>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>
>>> LMAO!
>>
>> WHACK!!!
>>  Stupid Rush cum slurpers.....
>>
>> IMPRISON ALL TRAITORS TO AMERICA!!!!
>>
>>
> I say Son, just settle down, just take it easy!!!!  Now go take your 
> Thorazine and everything will be alright!  And be sure to don't miss the
> milk and cookies they left for you! ;)  And watch the nice film too! - 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467

WHACK!!!!

Debunked, by people smarter than you, Chickenshit....
>
> Foghorn Leghorn
> http://www.myspace.com/isayboy

Uuhhhh...smells like chickenshit 'round here.

IMPEACH THE WHITEHOUSE FOR THE FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF 
IRAQ - BASED ON LIES! 

bob wrote:

> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
> 
> 
>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
> 
> 
>  Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>  How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
> 
>  In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
> Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
> introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
> deserve much credit for making it happen.
> 
>  One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
> such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
> and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago. 
> 
>  

Uh, decades ago, they were predicting another ice age...  Where you been?

JT

"pitchforks and torches" <ShrubImprisoned@theHague.com> wrote in message 
news:KcwSh.1186$2v1.220@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Foghorn Leghorn" <cockofthewalk@ri.rooster.com> wrote in message 
> news:KqvSh.21119$tD2.14570@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> pitchforks and torches wrote:
>>> <Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov> wrote in message 
>>> news:Xns990D3E026729BrvgIII@216.196.97.136...
>>>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>
>>>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>
>>>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>>
>>>> LMAO!
>>>
>>> WHACK!!!
>>>  Stupid Rush cum slurpers.....
>>>
>>> IMPRISON ALL TRAITORS TO AMERICA!!!!
>>>
>>>
>> I say Son, just settle down, just take it easy!!!!  Now go take your 
>> Thorazine and everything will be alright!  And be sure to don't miss the
>> milk and cookies they left for you! ;)  And watch the nice film too! - 
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467
>
> WHACK!!!!
>
> Debunked, by people smarter than you, Chickenshit....
>>
>> Foghorn Leghorn
>> http://www.myspace.com/isayboy
>
> Uuhhhh...smells like chickenshit 'round here.
>
> IMPEACH THE WHITEHOUSE FOR THE FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ILLEGAL INVASION 
> OF IRAQ - BASED ON LIES!

you are an emotional twit.  Remember Ted Kennedy loves you, but in a 
different way. 

pitchforks and torches wrote:
> "Foghorn Leghorn" <cockofthewalk@ri.rooster.com> wrote in message 
> news:KqvSh.21119$tD2.14570@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> pitchforks and torches wrote:
>>> <Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov> wrote in message 
>>> news:Xns990D3E026729BrvgIII@216.196.97.136...
>>>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>
>>>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>
>>>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>>
>>>> LMAO!
>>> WHACK!!!
>>>  Stupid Rush cum slurpers.....
>>>
>>> IMPRISON ALL TRAITORS TO AMERICA!!!!
>>>
>>>
>> I say Son, just settle down, just take it easy!!!!  Now go take your 
>> Thorazine and everything will be alright!  And be sure to don't miss the
>> milk and cookies they left for you! ;)  And watch the nice film too! - 
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467
> 
> WHACK!!!!
> 
> Debunked, by people smarter than you, Chickenshit....
>> Foghorn Leghorn
>> http://www.myspace.com/isayboy
> 
> Uuhhhh...smells like chickenshit 'round here.
> 
> IMPEACH THE WHITEHOUSE FOR THE FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF 
> IRAQ - BASED ON LIES! 
> 

      My, my, my, aren't we so insecure in ourself and our position that 
we must use colorful metaphors to strengthen our weak position!  I'd say 
your foul language has not impressed me at all to change my mind or my 
position!  Now let's take a closer look at who is lying - 
http://www.opinionjournal.com:80/extra/?id=110007540, and why they 
supported us going into Iraq - http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/, and we 
know who they are - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WLqIlt39ws - so when 
you have both John Edwards on the Senate Intelligence Committee and 
Nancy Pelosi in the House, supporting us to go into Iraq based upon 
Intelligence shared with the White House, it becomes hard to say the 
Bush lied, because if you say that you have to say a number of Democrats 
did as well, since intelligence doesn't belong exclusively to the 
Executive Branch but is shared with the Intelligence Committees in Congress!

      And before you think I've been debunked on global warming you 
should consider the following - 
http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/, 
and - Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming -
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20070406/4615c5c0_3ca6_1552620070406-256774162; 

it would seem the good professor thinks ocean temperature are going to 
drop in the next 5 to 10 years, and so if the professor is right, won't
you, Al Gore and the Greenies have egg on your faces?

                         Stupendous Man

                         http://www.myspace.com/stupendousleague

PS> I am a member of the League of Stupendous Gentlemen! ;)

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> bob wrote:
>
>> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you
>>> created.
>>
>>
>>  Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>>  How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>>
>>  In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United
>> States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>> Meaning he introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent"
>> it, he does deserve much credit for making it happen.
>>
>>  One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
>> such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
>> and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
>>
>>
>
> Uh, decades ago, they were predicting another ice age...  Where you
> been?

Uh, that was decades ago. Uh, this is now. Uh, science tends to make 
progress over time. Uh, for example, uh, decades ago a computer with, uh, 
less processing power than the average scientific calculator costs, uh, 
millions of dollars and took up several large rooms. Where you been?

Sharp as ever, yooz iz, JT...

-- 
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
� 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. 

charliekilo wrote:
> "bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
> news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
> 
>>Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>
>>Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>>How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>>
>>In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
>>Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
>>introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
>>deserve much credit for making it happen.
>>
>>One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
>>such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
>>and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
> 
> 
> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming theory --  
> there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of global warming. If 
> it's extremely cold, it because of global warming causing the extremes.
> 
> When I was growing up in the 70's, there was just as much panic cause by 
> scientists over global cooling.

I was around in the 70's and I paid attention. There wasn't a 'panic' by
scientists over global cooling at that time. There were a few fluff
articles in the popular press and that's about it. It didn't compare in
any way to the nearly unanimous consensus about the current climate problem,
which is more accurately termed 'global climate change'.

charliekilo wrote:
> You're right, you are completely wrong and utterly unaccountable... ;)
> 
> Here's an example from Newsweek, 1975: 
> http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

That is typical of the fluff articles as I mentioned.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

'Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming
predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age
and/or cooling" surfaces.'

On Apr 9, 6:16 pm, Bill Carter <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> charliekilo wrote:
> > "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
> >news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >>Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>
> >>>Record lows across the Southland!
> >>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
> >>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>
> >>Making up a stupid name for a single post.
> >>How long will a...@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>
> >>In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
> >>Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
> >>introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
> >>deserve much credit for making it happen.
>
> >>One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
> >>such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
> >>and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
>
> > That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming theory --
> > there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of global warming. If
> > it's extremely cold, it because of global warming causing the extremes.
>
> > When I was growing up in the 70's, there was just as much panic cause by
> > scientists over global cooling.
>
> I was around in the 70's and I paid attention. There wasn't a 'panic' by
> scientists over global cooling at that time. There were a few fluff
> articles in the popular press and that's about it. It didn't compare in
> any way to the nearly unanimous consensus about the current climate problem,
> which is more accurately termed 'global climate change'.

Now, now Bill. "Charlie" posted a link to an article in Newsweek that
discussed "global cooling" ... of course there was a panic! He said
so!

mh wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:16 pm, Bill Carter <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> 
>>charliekilo wrote:
>>
>>>"bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:461a329a.9794921@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>>Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>
>>>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>
>>>>Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>>>>How long will a...@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>>
>>>>In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
>>>>Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
>>>>introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
>>>>deserve much credit for making it happen.
>>
>>>>One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
>>>>such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
>>>>and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
>>
>>>That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming theory --
>>>there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of global warming. If
>>>it's extremely cold, it because of global warming causing the extremes.
>>
>>>When I was growing up in the 70's, there was just as much panic cause by
>>>scientists over global cooling.
>>
>>I was around in the 70's and I paid attention. There wasn't a 'panic' by
>>scientists over global cooling at that time. There were a few fluff
>>articles in the popular press and that's about it. It didn't compare in
>>any way to the nearly unanimous consensus about the current climate problem,
>>which is more accurately termed 'global climate change'.
> 
> 
> Now, now Bill. "Charlie" posted a link to an article in Newsweek that
> discussed "global cooling" ... of course there was a panic! He said
> so!

I stand corrected.

Foghorn Leghorn wrote:
> I say Son, just settle down, just take it easy!!!!  Now go take your 
> Thorazine and everything will be alright!  And be sure to don't miss the
> milk and cookies they left for you! ;)  And watch the nice film too! - 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467

Here's a point-by-point rebuttal of that film (the sound is not so good);

http://nodvin.net/swindle_scam/index.html

On Apr 9, 6:24 pm, Bill Carter <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> charliekilo wrote:
> > You're right, you are completely wrong and utterly unaccountable... ;)
>
> > Here's an example from Newsweek, 1975:
> >http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
>
> That is typical of the fluff articles as I mentioned.
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
>
> 'Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming
> predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age
> and/or cooling" surfaces.'

Hmmm ...

Stupendous Man wrote:
> position!  Now let's take a closer look at who is lying - 
> http://www.opinionjournal.com:80/extra/?id=110007540, and why they 

Woo, an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. It may be possible
that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. A lot of sorry little despots all
around the world want them. But he didn't have anything close to a
nuclear capability.

"Of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none
is more dangerous--or more urgent--than the situation in Iraq. Over the
last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or
calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts
to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its
weapons of mass destruction."

Saddam had nothing, US troops scoured the country intensively for months
and finally gave up. He was going nowhere. He was contained. The whole
thing was a lie, and George Bush fed it to us.

> supported us going into Iraq - http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/, and we

Christopher Hitchens, hehe, another bloviating opinion piece. He says
some guy went to Niger. But didn't get any uranium. Unlike we were led
to believe.

> know who they are - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WLqIlt39ws - so when 
> you have both John Edwards on the Senate Intelligence Committee and 
> Nancy Pelosi in the House, supporting us to go into Iraq based upon 
> Intelligence shared with the White House, it becomes hard to say the 
> Bush lied, because if you say that you have to say a number of Democrats 
> did as well, since intelligence doesn't belong exclusively to the 
> Executive Branch but is shared with the Intelligence Committees in 
> Congress!

Obviously the Intelligence Committees got snookered, eh?

http://blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=2859

"Newly released documents confirm that a Pentagon unit knowingly cooked
up intelligence claiming a direct link between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order
to win support for a preemptive strike against the country."

GW Bush is the Commander in Chief, he controls the Pentagon. Cheney
established a task force at the Pentagon to cook the intelligence reports.

>      And before you think I've been debunked on global warming you 
> should consider the following - 
> http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/, 
> and - Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming -
> http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20070406/4615c5c0_3ca6_1552620070406-256774162;

I don't know where you stand on this issue but those two articles are in
opposition to each other. Did you read them?

Bill Carter wrote:
> 
>>      And before you think I've been debunked on global warming you 
>> should consider the following - 
>> http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/, 
>> and - Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming -
>> http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20070406/4615c5c0_3ca6_1552620070406-256774162; 
>>
> 
> I don't know where you stand on this issue but those two articles are in
> opposition to each other. Did you read them?
> 
      It's all funny when you stop to think about it!  The same 
computers and computer programs, that they use to forecast next week's 
weather, and still don't get it right, are the same computers and 
computer programs they are using to make decade long predictions on weather!

      Here's another point to consider, don't you think it funny that we 
are experiencing global warming on 4 of the solar systems 9 planets? 
     If Solar Cycles don't drive the temperature change in the climate,
then can you kindly explain why global warming is simultaneously
happening on Mars
(http://www.space.com:80/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html),
Jupiter
(http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml),
and Pluto
(http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)?  Now
explain how Solar Cycles don't drive the same temperature change and
global warming that we see on the earth, along with the simultaneous
global warming that is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto?

      Here's a better film for you to watch - 
http://www.totaleclips.com/player/SplashDisney.aspx?custid=3&playerid=2&clipid=e26370

                         Stupendous Man

                         http://www.myspace.com/stupendousleague

PS> I am a member of the League of Stupendous Gentlemen! ;)

Peter Principle wrote:

> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> 
>>bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you
>>>>created.
>>>
>>>
>>> Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>>> How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?
>>>
>>> In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United
>>>States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>>Meaning he introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent"
>>>it, he does deserve much credit for making it happen.
>>>
>>> One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
>>>such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
>>>and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Uh, decades ago, they were predicting another ice age...  Where you
>>been?
> 
> 
> Uh, that was decades ago. Uh, this is now. Uh, science tends to make 
> progress over time. Uh, for example, uh, decades ago a computer with, uh, 
> less processing power than the average scientific calculator costs, uh, 
> millions of dollars and took up several large rooms. Where you been?
> 
> Sharp as ever, yooz iz, JT...
> 


Oh yeah...  Conclusions can be made on short term observations  which is 
exactly what is happening now.

All the sheeple, (you included), are cowering at the abyss based on 
shrill proclamations by Al Gore and the like based on science that as 
time passes seems to have little to be based on not withstanding the 
huge amount of money generated in yet another created "feel good" industry.

No one can deny that warming is taking place.  What all you blindly led 
herding critters don't want or are not capable recognizing is the 
increasing body of evidence that warming is solar based, cyclical and is 
affecting other planets as well. Human contributions to GW are but a 
mere drop in a large bucket.

Yep, you're on target awright...

JT

Stupendous Man wrote:

> Bill Carter wrote:
> 
>>
>>>      And before you think I've been debunked on global warming you 
>>> should consider the following - 
>>> http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/, 
>>> and - Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming -
>>> http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20070406/4615c5c0_3ca6_1552620070406-256774162; 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know where you stand on this issue but those two articles are in
>> opposition to each other. Did you read them?
>>
>      It's all funny when you stop to think about it!  The same computers 
> and computer programs, that they use to forecast next week's weather, 
> and still don't get it right, are the same computers and computer 
> programs they are using to make decade long predictions on weather!
> 
>      Here's another point to consider, don't you think it funny that we 
> are experiencing global warming on 4 of the solar systems 9 planets?     
> If Solar Cycles don't drive the temperature change in the climate,
> then can you kindly explain why global warming is simultaneously
> happening on Mars
> (http://www.space.com:80/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html),
> Jupiter
> (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml),
> and Pluto
> (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)?  Now
> explain how Solar Cycles don't drive the same temperature change and
> global warming that we see on the earth, along with the simultaneous
> global warming that is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto?
> 
>      Here's a better film for you to watch - 
> http://www.totaleclips.com/player/SplashDisney.aspx?custid=3&playerid=2&clipid=e26370 
> 
> 
>                         Stupendous Man
> 
>                         http://www.myspace.com/stupendousleague
> 
> PS> I am a member of the League of Stupendous Gentlemen! ;)


Please don't confuse us with sustainable facts...

<g>

JT

bob@indigo.com (bob) wrote in news:461a329a.9794921
@news.east.earthlink.net:

> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
> 
>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
> 
>  Making up a stupid name for a single post.
>  How long will abuse@comcast.net allow it to keep its account?

My, another insignificant fly speck has belched forth its threat, similar
to all of the many grease spots that came before it, who wasted their time
complaining about revealed truths that do not suit their brainless agenda.

LMAO!

>  In 1999, on CNN, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States
> Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Meaning he
> introduced the legislation. Although he didn't "invent" it, he does
> deserve much credit for making it happen.

Cast your vote for gory Al in '08; put your vote where your faith is <g>!
Otherwise, you are merely another insincere, pantywaist coward.

>  One of the effects of Global Warming is bizarre weather incidents,
> such as temperature extremes, hurricanes and tornadoes at odd times
> and places, etc. This was predicted by scientists decades ago. 

No, sproggie Bob, that would be the "Global *Cooling* Holocaust"
prediction, but you are juvenile enough that you don't remember it as
many of us who lived through it do.  Look it up, you'll find it.  It
happened just after the (reality of the) SST threat.

We have already lived through the hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,
temperature extremes and many other weather anomalies over the years,
unlike you and your gullible, impressionable little "friends" and
amazingly, many of those new record setting events happened even before
there was an *industry* creating the fear of "Global Cooling/Warming"!

>  Most of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record.
>  It's going to get hotter.

Mexico just finished its coldest winter on record <g>, sproggie Bob.
Uncle gory Al and "pals" forgot to tell you about that, no doubt.

The last decade of Texas heat has been mild, in comparison with that
which came before, although the population has climbed unmercifully
and available resources are now being strained ( see P.S. ;).

Yours is merely yet another predictably typical response from a standard,
left wing corrupted lunatic child, serving the coven as a lamebrained,
*Chicken Little* clone.

Run, sproggie Bob, tell the world that "the sky is falling"!

LoL!


P.S.  Don't worry about the illegal aliens that are filling your nation in
droves, planning to transform you into an irrelevant gringo peon, because,
after all, Gee Dubby Dub and the left wing coven are neatly aligned on
that issue, both serving to aid and abet, so be a good maggot, now <g>.

Who dragged this into all these newsgroups??



Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> 
> Oh yeah...  Conclusions can be made on short term observations  which is 
> exactly what is happening now.
> 
> All the sheeple, (you included), are cowering at the abyss based on 
> shrill proclamations by Al Gore and the like based on science that as 
> time passes seems to have little to be based on not withstanding the 
> huge amount of money generated in yet another created "feel good" industry.
> 
> No one can deny that warming is taking place.  What all you blindly led 
> herding critters don't want or are not capable recognizing is the 
> increasing body of evidence that warming is solar based, cyclical and is 
> affecting other planets as well. Human contributions to GW are but a 
> mere drop in a large bucket.

    It's probably closer to the truth to admit that in spite of all the
money spent, scientists don't have any firm answers. By making
assertions that Mann et al have, essentially their position is that
they have all the answers and the warming trend is caused by one
factor. To not even consider other variables makes no sense from a
scientific PoV. The GCMs that people have poured money and data into
have never been able to predict global temp changes accurately, which
makes sense because the modeling a complex, chaotic system like the
atmosphere is probably impossible. Ultimately, it seems that nobody
on any side of this debate really has much in the way of answers, but
that's not enough to keep many folks from advocating handing over even
more of individuals' precious liberties to still more burgeoning
bureaucracies at all levels.
> 
> Yep, you're on target awright...
> 
> JT
> 
> 

Stupendous Man wrote:
> Bill Carter wrote:
> 
>>
>>>      And before you think I've been debunked on global warming you 
>>> should consider the following - 
>>> http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/, 
>>> and - Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming -
>>> http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20070406/4615c5c0_3ca6_1552620070406-256774162; 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know where you stand on this issue but those two articles are in
>> opposition to each other. Did you read them?
>>
>      It's all funny when you stop to think about it!  The same computers 
> and computer programs, that they use to forecast next week's weather, 
> and still don't get it right, are the same computers and computer 
> programs they are using to make decade long predictions on weather!

So you didn't read the articles before you posted the links? Seems like
that would be kind of embarrassing. I'm no climate scientist, but I
suspect there is a whole different set of programming issues involved
with modelling global climate over a period many years on the one hand,
and coming up with a short-term forecast of the local weather on the
other. When the climatologists tell me that the southwestern US is going
to turn into a dust bowl pretty quick though, I pay close attention. Maybe
I should buy property in Canada; http://tinyurl.com/2z32ha

>      Here's another point to consider, don't you think it funny that we 
> are experiencing global warming on 4 of the solar systems 9 planets?     
> If Solar Cycles don't drive the temperature change in the climate,
> then can you kindly explain why global warming is simultaneously
> happening on Mars
> (http://www.space.com:80/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html),
> Jupiter
> (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml),
> and Pluto
> (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)?  Now
> explain how Solar Cycles don't drive the same temperature change and
> global warming that we see on the earth, along with the simultaneous
> global warming that is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto?

I love space.com, I check that website every day. If you read those
articles carefully (you didn't read these either?) you will see the
explanations for their temperature trends. It has nothing to do with
what is happening on Earth.

Pluto;
"The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple
facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's
distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years;
and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the
orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees."

Jupiter;
"Once enough vortices are gone, the planet's atmosphere will warm at the
equator and cool at the poles by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in each
region, which is stage three of the climate cycle."

Mars;
"There appears to be too much frozen water at low-latitude regions -- away
from the frigid poles -- given the current climate of Mars. The situation
is not in equilibrium, said William Feldman of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory." This is the sum total of the evidence of warming after one
year of study. Planets naturally undergo climate change it is true.

Also see this;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm

"Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a
small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results
and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States,
Switzerland, and Germany."

> 
>      Here's a better film for you to watch - 
> http://www.totaleclips.com/player/SplashDisney.aspx?custid=3&playerid=2&clipid=e26370

Link didn't work for me Stupendous Man.

> 
> 
>                         Stupendous Man
> 
>                         http://www.myspace.com/stupendousleague
> 
> PS> I am a member of the League of Stupendous Gentlemen! ;)

I am thinking 'not so great boy' at this point.

"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: 

> On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>
>> >>Record lows across the Southland!
>> >>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>> >>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>
>> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>> theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>> global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>> causing the extremes. 
>>
>> When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>> by scientists over global cooling.
> 
> And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
> You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
> unaccountable.
> 
> Great fun!

Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.

But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?

Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
all soggy, once again!

LMAO!

Bill Carter <qhk6cxl02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:0fydnX15Gfs3nIbbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@giganews.com: 

> Mars;
> .. Planets naturally undergo climate change it is true.
> 
> I am thinking 'not so great boy' at this point.

As you peer into the mirror, obviously <g>.

Joseph Crowe wrote:

> Who dragged this into all these newsgroups??
> 
> 
> 
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> 
>>
>> Oh yeah...  Conclusions can be made on short term observations  which 
>> is exactly what is happening now.
>>
>> All the sheeple, (you included), are cowering at the abyss based on 
>> shrill proclamations by Al Gore and the like based on science that as 
>> time passes seems to have little to be based on not withstanding the 
>> huge amount of money generated in yet another created "feel good" 
>> industry.
>>
>> No one can deny that warming is taking place.  What all you blindly 
>> led herding critters don't want or are not capable recognizing is the 
>> increasing body of evidence that warming is solar based, cyclical and 
>> is affecting other planets as well. Human contributions to GW are but 
>> a mere drop in a large bucket.
> 
> 
>    It's probably closer to the truth to admit that in spite of all the
> money spent, scientists don't have any firm answers. By making
> assertions that Mann et al have, essentially their position is that
> they have all the answers and the warming trend is caused by one
> factor. To not even consider other variables makes no sense from a
> scientific PoV. The GCMs that people have poured money and data into
> have never been able to predict global temp changes accurately, which
> makes sense because the modeling a complex, chaotic system like the
> atmosphere is probably impossible. Ultimately, it seems that nobody
> on any side of this debate really has much in the way of answers, but
> that's not enough to keep many folks from advocating handing over even
> more of individuals' precious liberties to still more burgeoning
> bureaucracies at all levels.
> 


Wouldn'tcha know it...  Here's 'nuther interesting take on the GW 
hysteria by "some guy" at MIT..


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/


But, I suppose that this will be summarily dismissed by the GW zealots 
as lunacy...

JT

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:17:24 -0500,
Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:

>
>"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: 
>
>> On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Record lows across the Southland!
>>> >>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>> >>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>
>>> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>>> theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>>> global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>>> causing the extremes. 
>>>
>>> When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>>> by scientists over global cooling.
>> 
>> And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
>> You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
>> unaccountable.
>> 
>> Great fun!
>
>Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
>the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
>they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
>and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
>due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.
>
>But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?
>
>Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
>all soggy, once again!
>
>LMAO!

So you believe that pouring exhaust from millions of vehicles, power
plants, and industry into the air that you breath is a good thing?
Why don't you park your car in your garage, close the door, and rev
the engine until you die laughing at all the tree huggers.  Be sure to
bring your kids into your fantasy to prove that breathing pollution is
good for them.  Be sure to share your cigarettes with your kids while
you take that slow ride because that builds strong lungs, too.

David Agnew wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:17:24 -0500,
> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
> 
> 
>>"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: 
>>
>>
>>>On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>>
>>>>That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>>>>theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>>>>global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>>>>causing the extremes. 
>>>>
>>>>When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>>>>by scientists over global cooling.
>>>
>>>And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
>>>You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
>>>unaccountable.
>>>
>>>Great fun!
>>
>>Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
>>the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
>>they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
>>and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
>>due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.
>>
>>But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?
>>
>>Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
>>all soggy, once again!
>>
>>LMAO!
> 
> 
> So you believe that pouring exhaust from millions of vehicles, power
> plants, and industry into the air that you breath is a good thing?
> Why don't you park your car in your garage, close the door, and rev
> the engine until you die laughing at all the tree huggers.  Be sure to
> bring your kids into your fantasy to prove that breathing pollution is
> good for them.  Be sure to share your cigarettes with your kids while
> you take that slow ride because that builds strong lungs, too.

You really have no grasp at all about what this issue is, do you?

On 4/10/07 7:44 AM, in article cd1n135jijva2hkd0b5ogbocr11qod0imu@4ax.com,
"David Agnew" <DavidAgnew@nospam.nul> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:17:24 -0500,
> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
> 
>> 
>> "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>> 
>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>> 
>>>> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>>>> theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>>>> global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>>>> causing the extremes.
>>>> 
>>>> When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>>>> by scientists over global cooling.
>>> 
>>> And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
>>> You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
>>> unaccountable.
>>> 
>>> Great fun!
>> 
>> Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
>> the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
>> they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
>> and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
>> due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.
>> 
>> But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?
>> 
>> Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
>> all soggy, once again!
>> 
>> LMAO!
> 
> So you believe that pouring exhaust from millions of vehicles, power
> plants, and industry into the air that you breath is a good thing?
> Why don't you park your car in your garage, close the door, and rev
> the engine until you die laughing at all the tree huggers.  Be sure to
> bring your kids into your fantasy to prove that breathing pollution is
> good for them.  Be sure to share your cigarettes with your kids while
> you take that slow ride because that builds strong lungs, too.
You are about six or seven years, are you not?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 4/10/07 8:39 AM, in article 461b935b$0$19404$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
"Running Scissors" <runsci@yahoo.com> wrote:

> David Agnew wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:17:24 -0500,
>> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>>>> Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>>>> Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>>>>> theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>>>>> global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>>>>> causing the extremes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>>>>> by scientists over global cooling.
>>>> 
>>>> And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
>>>> You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
>>>> unaccountable.
>>>> 
>>>> Great fun!
>>> 
>>> Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
>>> the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
>>> they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
>>> and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
>>> due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.
>>> 
>>> But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?
>>> 
>>> Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
>>> all soggy, once again!
>>> 
>>> LMAO!
>> 
>> 
>> So you believe that pouring exhaust from millions of vehicles, power
>> plants, and industry into the air that you breath is a good thing?
>> Why don't you park your car in your garage, close the door, and rev
>> the engine until you die laughing at all the tree huggers.  Be sure to
>> bring your kids into your fantasy to prove that breathing pollution is
>> good for them.  Be sure to share your cigarettes with your kids while
>> you take that slow ride because that builds strong lungs, too.
> 
> You really have no grasp at all about what this issue is, do you?
No shit!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

bob wrote:
> Bill Carter  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Stupendous Man wrote:
>>
>>><cut links>
> 
> 
>>>I don't know where you stand on this issue but those two articles are in
>>>opposition to each other. Did you read them?
> 
>  
>  heh. He's asked that  periodically at news:nashville.general
> 
>  If you back it into a corner, it morphs into one of its other
> aliases: aminius wesley, tracer bullet, CS Lewis, a few others. And
> then responds with a long, rambling post with little substance. 
>  Many regulars just call it George.
>  It often posts links to Fox News. 

Aha, thanks for the info. We have several of these
on austin.general as well. I'll know not to pay attention
to it in the future.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Wouldn'tcha know it...  Here's 'nuther interesting take on the GW 
> hysteria by "some guy" at MIT..
> 
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

That's not another take. That's the same take you trot out
every couple of months. We've been around this block a few
times, Lindzen's claims have been thoroughly and extensively
debunked.

Do you have an opinion of your own that you can state in a
paragraph with some supporting documentation? Other than
Lindzen? One hillbilly sentence accompanied by a link to
msn.com doesn't make much of a case.

charliekilo wrote:
> "bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
> news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
> 
>>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for the
>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' cold
>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
> 
> 
> Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also include 
> Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
> 
> Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes comments from 
> prominent scientists):
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.story?coll=la-home-headlines
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this thread
to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want to
defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
statements of fact.

"Bill Carter" <qhk6cxl02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message 
news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
> charliekilo wrote:
>> "bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for the
>>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' cold
>>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
>>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
>>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>>
>>
>> Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also 
>> include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>>
>> Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes comments 
>> from prominent scientists):
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>
> It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this thread
> to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
> suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want to
> defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
> statements of fact.

Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based on 
science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical proof. 
Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame the 
U.S..

On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > charliekilo wrote:
> >> "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >>>Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for the
> >>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
> >>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
> >>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' cold
> >>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>
> >>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
> >>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
> >>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>
> >> Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
> >> include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>
> >> Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes comments
> >> from prominent scientists):
> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
> >>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>
> > It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this thread
> > to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
> > suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want to
> > defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
> > statements of fact.
>
> Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based on
> science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical proof.
> Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame the
> U.S..

Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
the U.S. solely.

While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
countries increase their emissions.

Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
will then buy from us.

Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
get rid of CFCs.

Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.

Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
likelihood.

If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.

"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176249439.450633.177840@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > charliekilo wrote:
>> >> "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>
>> >>>Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for 
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
>> >>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>> >>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' 
>> >>>>cold
>> >>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>>
>> >>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
>> >>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
>> >>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>>
>> >> Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
>> >> include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>>
>> >> Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes 
>> >> comments
>> >> from prominent scientists):
>> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
>> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
>> >>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>
>> > It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this 
>> > thread
>> > to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
>> > suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want 
>> > to
>> > defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
>> > statements of fact.
>>
>> Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based 
>> on
>> science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical 
>> proof.
>> Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame 
>> the
>> U.S..
>
> Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
> contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
> the U.S. solely.
>
> While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
> largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
> countries increase their emissions.
>
> Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
> can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
> we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
> will then buy from us.
>
> Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
> U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
> strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
> from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
> get rid of CFCs.
>
> Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
> scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.
>
> Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
> physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
> Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
> object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
> What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
> that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
> universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
> likelihood.
>
> If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
> theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.

A 'Tip'O'th'Mallet' to ya, sir. Good post....well reasoned, and well stated. 
Carry on....
> 

charliekilo wrote:

> "Bill Carter" <qhk6cxl02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message 
> news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
>>charliekilo wrote:
>>
>>>"bob" <bob@indigo.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for the
>>>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' cold
>>>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
>>>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
>>>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also 
>>>include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>>>
>>>Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes comments 
>>>from prominent scientists):
>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>
>>It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this thread
>>to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
>>suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want to
>>defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
>>statements of fact.
> 
> 
> Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based on 
> science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical proof. 
> Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame the 
> U.S..
> 
> 


You're wasting your breath.  These whiners simply are followers, not 
thinkers.

So far, the presented case simply lacks the proof required to quatify 
their, (The GW caused by humans scenario), case position.

As I have stated previously, I was sucked into bad science in the late 
1960's/early 1970's ---  Never Again.

JT

mh wrote:

> On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>charliekilo wrote:
>>>
>>>>"bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for the
>>>>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>>>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' cold
>>>>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>>
>>>>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
>>>>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
>>>>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>>
>>>>Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
>>>>include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>>
>>>>Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes comments
>>>>from prominent scientists):
>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
>>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>
>>>It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this thread
>>>to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
>>>suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want to
>>>defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
>>>statements of fact.
>>
>>Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based on
>>science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical proof.
>>Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame the
>>U.S..
> 
> 
> Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
> contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
> the U.S. solely.
> 
> While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
> largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
> countries increase their emissions.
> 
> Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
> can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
> we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
> will then buy from us.
> 
> Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
> U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
> strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
> from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
> get rid of CFCs.
> 
> Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
> scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.
> 
> Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
> physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
> Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
> object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
> What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
> that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
> universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
> likelihood.
> 
> If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
> theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.
> 


Right you are... NOT!

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_06/

Read it and weep...  You're in my territory now doofus

JT

pitchforks and torches wrote:

> "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1176249439.450633.177840@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>charliekilo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for 
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
>>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>>>>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' 
>>>>>>>cold
>>>>>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
>>>>>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
>>>>>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>>>
>>>>>Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
>>>>>include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>>>
>>>>>Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes 
>>>>>comments
>>>>>from prominent scientists):
>>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
>>>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
>>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>>
>>>>It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this 
>>>>thread
>>>>to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
>>>>suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want 
>>>>to
>>>>defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
>>>>statements of fact.
>>>
>>>Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based 
>>>on
>>>science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical 
>>>proof.
>>>Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame 
>>>the
>>>U.S..
>>
>>Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
>>contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
>>the U.S. solely.
>>
>>While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
>>largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
>>countries increase their emissions.
>>
>>Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
>>can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
>>we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
>>will then buy from us.
>>
>>Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
>>U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
>>strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
>>from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
>>get rid of CFCs.
>>
>>Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
>>scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.
>>
>>Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
>>physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
>>Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
>>object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
>>What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
>>that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
>>universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
>>likelihood.
>>
>>If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
>>theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.
> 
> 
> A 'Tip'O'th'Mallet' to ya, sir. Good post....well reasoned, and well stated. 
> Carry on....
> 
> 

...and full of shit!

JT

On Apr 10, 8:25 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> mh wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >>>charliekilo wrote:
>
> >>>>"bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >>>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for the
> >>>>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
> >>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
> >>>>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' cold
> >>>>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>
> >>>>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
> >>>>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
> >>>>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>
> >>>>Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
> >>>>include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>
> >>>>Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes comments
> >>>>from prominent scientists):
> >>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
> >>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
> >>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
> >>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> >>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>
> >>>It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this thread
> >>>to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
> >>>suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want to
> >>>defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
> >>>statements of fact.
>
> >>Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based on
> >>science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical proof.
> >>Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame the
> >>U.S..
>
> > Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
> > contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
> > the U.S. solely.
>
> > While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
> > largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
> > countries increase their emissions.
>
> > Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
> > can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
> > we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
> > will then buy from us.
>
> > Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
> > U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
> > strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
> > from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
> > get rid of CFCs.
>
> > Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
> > scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.
>
> > Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
> > physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
> > Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
> > object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
> > What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
> > that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
> > universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
> > likelihood.
>
> > If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
> > theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.
>
> Right you are... NOT!
>
> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/s...
>
> Read it and weep...  You're in my territory now doofus
>
> JT

I stand corrected on the ozone depletion; but like I said before, I'm
man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

Now, do you have any substantial argument with the rest of my post, or
are you going to run back and hide behind Mapi's apron?

On Apr 10, 8:26 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> pitchforks and torches wrote:
> > "mh" <hobrats...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1176249439.450633.177840@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >>>>charliekilo wrote:
>
> >>>>>"bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >>>>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for
> >>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
> >>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
> >>>>>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin'
> >>>>>>>cold
> >>>>>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>
> >>>>>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
> >>>>>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
> >>>>>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>
> >>>>>Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
> >>>>>include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>
> >>>>>Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes
> >>>>>comments
> >>>>>from prominent scientists):
> >>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
> >>>>>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
> >>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
> >>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> >>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>
> >>>>It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this
> >>>>thread
> >>>>to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
> >>>>suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want
> >>>>to
> >>>>defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
> >>>>statements of fact.
>
> >>>Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based
> >>>on
> >>>science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical
> >>>proof.
> >>>Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame
> >>>the
> >>>U.S..
>
> >>Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
> >>contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
> >>the U.S. solely.
>
> >>While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
> >>largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
> >>countries increase their emissions.
>
> >>Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
> >>can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
> >>we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
> >>will then buy from us.
>
> >>Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
> >>U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
> >>strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
> >>from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
> >>get rid of CFCs.
>
> >>Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
> >>scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.
>
> >>Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
> >>physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
> >>Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
> >>object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
> >>What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
> >>that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
> >>universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
> >>likelihood.
>
> >>If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
> >>theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.
>
> > A 'Tip'O'th'Mallet' to ya, sir. Good post....well reasoned, and well stated.
> > Carry on....
>
> ...and full of shit!
>
> JT


Such well-reasoned debate tactics. It's not wonder you have the awe
and respect of ... um ... .

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:39:25 -0500, Running Scissors
<runsci@yahoo.com> wrote:

>David Agnew wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:17:24 -0500,
>> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: 
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>>>>>theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>>>>>global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>>>>>causing the extremes. 
>>>>>
>>>>>When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>>>>>by scientists over global cooling.
>>>>
>>>>And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
>>>>You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
>>>>unaccountable.
>>>>
>>>>Great fun!
>>>
>>>Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
>>>the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
>>>they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
>>>and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
>>>due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.
>>>
>>>But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?
>>>
>>>Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
>>>all soggy, once again!
>>>
>>>LMAO!
>> 
>> 
>> So you believe that pouring exhaust from millions of vehicles, power
>> plants, and industry into the air that you breath is a good thing?
>> Why don't you park your car in your garage, close the door, and rev
>> the engine until you die laughing at all the tree huggers.  Be sure to
>> bring your kids into your fantasy to prove that breathing pollution is
>> good for them.  Be sure to share your cigarettes with your kids while
>> you take that slow ride because that builds strong lungs, too.
>
>You really have no grasp at all about what this issue is, do you?

The issue is that morons like you don't give a shit.

Sure, if you right wing Repuglinuts let Bush destroy the world sooner,
your Jesus pixie will ride his flaming chariot back for The Rapture
and fly you off to Heaven with your tinfoil hats.  No wonder America
rejected frothy bastard Repugs at the last Election.  You got
shitcanned.  Get Therapy for the sour grapes, losers.  LOL.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:08:21 -0500, David Agnew
<DavidAgnew@nospam.nul> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:39:25 -0500, Running Scissors
><runsci@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>David Agnew wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:17:24 -0500,
>>> Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>>>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>>>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>>>>>>theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>>>>>>global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>>>>>>causing the extremes. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>>>>>>by scientists over global cooling.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
>>>>>You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
>>>>>unaccountable.
>>>>>
>>>>>Great fun!
>>>>
>>>>Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
>>>>the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
>>>>they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
>>>>and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
>>>>due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.
>>>>
>>>>But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?
>>>>
>>>>Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
>>>>all soggy, once again!
>>>>
>>>>LMAO!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So you believe that pouring exhaust from millions of vehicles, power
>>> plants, and industry into the air that you breath is a good thing?
>>> Why don't you park your car in your garage, close the door, and rev
>>> the engine until you die laughing at all the tree huggers.  Be sure to
>>> bring your kids into your fantasy to prove that breathing pollution is
>>> good for them.  Be sure to share your cigarettes with your kids while
>>> you take that slow ride because that builds strong lungs, too.
>>
>>You really have no grasp at all about what this issue is, do you?


The issue is that morons like you don't give a shit.

Sure, if you right wing Repuglinuts let Bush destroy the world sooner,
your Jesus pixie will ride his flaming chariot back for The Rapture
and fly you off to Heaven with your tinfoil hats.  No wonder America
rejected frothy bastard Repugs at the last Election.  You got
shitcanned.  Get Therapy for the sour grapes, losers.  LOL.

David Agnew wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:08:21 -0500, David Agnew
> <DavidAgnew@nospam.nul> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:39:25 -0500, Running Scissors
>><runsci@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David Agnew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:17:24 -0500,
>>>>Global.Cooling.Is.Here@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:1176137526.294279.311230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Apr 9, 10:41 am, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Global.Cooling.Is.H...@Al.Gore.Has.Lost.It.gov wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Record lows across the Southland!
>>>>>>>>>Where's the *heat*, gory "uncle" Al Gore?
>>>>>>>>>Must be in the same lock box as that InterNet thing that you created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's the cool (pun not intended) thing about the global warming
>>>>>>>theory -- there is no wrong answer. If it's warm, it's because of
>>>>>>>global warming. If it's extremely cold, it's because of global warming
>>>>>>>causing the extremes. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When I was growing up in the 70s, there was just as much panic caused
>>>>>>>by scientists over global cooling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And that's the cool thing about being an anonymouse poster on Usenet.
>>>>>>You can be completely wrong about something and still be utterly
>>>>>>unaccountable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Great fun!
>>>>>
>>>>>Right; which fairly well sums up the erroneous, delusive claims made by
>>>>>the "Global Warming is reality" faithful advocates/activists, when in fact
>>>>>they are merely manipulated, dancing string puppets in the gory Al Gore
>>>>>and "pals" phantasy show, since irrefutable proof will never be rendered,
>>>>>due to the impossibility of that chore ever being accomplished.
>>>>>
>>>>>But then, why should the "GWIR" fawners worry about trivial *proof* <g>?
>>>>>
>>>>>Meaning, in short, that the private "mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> parade is
>>>>>all soggy, once again!
>>>>>
>>>>>LMAO!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you believe that pouring exhaust from millions of vehicles, power
>>>>plants, and industry into the air that you breath is a good thing?
>>>>Why don't you park your car in your garage, close the door, and rev
>>>>the engine until you die laughing at all the tree huggers.  Be sure to
>>>>bring your kids into your fantasy to prove that breathing pollution is
>>>>good for them.  Be sure to share your cigarettes with your kids while
>>>>you take that slow ride because that builds strong lungs, too.
>>>
>>>You really have no grasp at all about what this issue is, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that morons like you don't give a shit.
> 
> Sure, if you right wing Repuglinuts let Bush destroy the world sooner,
> your Jesus pixie will ride his flaming chariot back for The Rapture
> and fly you off to Heaven with your tinfoil hats.  No wonder America
> rejected frothy bastard Repugs at the last Election.  You got
> shitcanned.  Get Therapy for the sour grapes, losers.  LOL.
> 

That's a heap of assumptions based on just my observation that you 
don't know what you're talking about.  More proof of same, I guess...

PLONK