OT: One more for the deniers

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:j91Xj.1063$vE.587@trnddc03...
> DGDevin <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
>>> American public." -- H. L. Mencken
>>
>> "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member."
>>
>> Groucho Marx
>>
>>> Besides, ability to get elected and intelligence are not synonymous.
>>
>> Until a Dem wins you mean. ;~)
>
> We've had some pretty bright candidates running on the Democratic ticket
> that didn't have a prayer. Stevenson comes to mind.
>
> Unfortunately high intelligence frequently comes with a cold personality
> (see Dukakis). Clinton too was smart and also had the empathy factor
> (whether real or feigned). Trouble is, he was basically a sleazebag
> too.
>
>>
>> Hey, Carter is a bright guy and his administration was a mess, it
>> almost seems as if intelligence isn't a good indicator of how good
>> someone will be as President either.
>
> Carter never learned to wheel and deal. I think he was a fairly bright
> guy but he illustrates my point quite well.
>
> Overall, though, successful politicians don't tend to be on the really
> intelligent side, but the good ones know how to attract people who are.

But Carter succeeded in getting the price of peanuts raised.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>The Repair Guy wrote:
>
>> "This President is treated by both the press and
>> foreign leaders as if he were a child.... It is major
>> news when he honors a political or economic
>> discussion with a germane remark and not an
>> anecdote about his Hollywood days."
>> --Columnist Richard Cohen
>
>I have to admire the ability of liberals to state
>with such certainty that two-term Republican
>Presidents are dummies while adroitly avoiding
>the subject of how those dummies managed to
>whip the collective Dem butt come election time.

Haven't the repubs raised more money
over the years?

The Repair Guy
http :// repairguy1993,net firms,com /

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

The Repair Guy wrote:

> Haven't the repubs raised more money
> over the years?

Traditionally that's true, but we could also point to candidates who
outspent their rivals and still lost. Consider Mitt Romney, just having
lots of money to spend didn't get him to the White House. Plus the Dems
have advantages on their side too like the support of labor unions most of
the time, so it seems to me that neither side can claim the deck is stacked
against them. Bill Clinton gave a speech after the 2004 election in which
he told his party how to stop letting the Repubs eat their lunch, as the
only elected two-term Dem President in half a century you'd think they would
listen to him....

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

> I have to admire the ability of liberals to state with such certainty that
> two-term Republican Presidents are dummies while adroitly avoiding the
> subject of how those dummies managed to whip the collective Dem butt come
> election time.  Considering that the Dems have only managed to get their man
> into the Oval Office for three terms in the past four decades you'd think
> that liberals would be getting a bit discouraged with the theme that three
> times out of four they lose to a dummy, is has to be dispiriting.
The President's can be dumb but no-one said the Republican machine was
dumb. It took the Democratic machine a while to catch on but we
finally caught on. However, considering that you have whole media
outlets (FOX) and talk-radio controlled by the right, it's hard to
catch up.

Mr Soul

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"Lord Valve" <detritus@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:482AF7E1.9A8F8ED5@ix,net com,com ...
> Mr Soul wrote:
>
>> > EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>> > Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>> > to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>> > The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>> > trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>> > dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>> > Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>> Anyone who doesn't believe the Earth is warming up due to CO2
>> emmissions is just plain stupid.
>>
>> Mr Soul
>
> 'The trouble with our liberal friends is
> not that they're ignorant; it's just that
> they know so much that isn't so.'
> - Ronald Reagan
>
> Lurd

Gee Wilby, even your queen Duhbya stated that there is
a threat from global warming.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Mr Soul wrote:
>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
> Anyone who doesn't believe the Earth is warming up due to CO2
> emmissions is just plain stupid.
>
> Mr Soul

http :// www .futurepundit,com /archives/004341.html

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

On Wed, 14 May 2008 05:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Mr Soul <pcDAW@comcast,net >
wrote:

>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>Anyone who doesn't believe the Earth is warming up due to CO2
>emmissions is just plain stupid.
>
>Mr Soul
Anybody that believes the dumbasses stating shit happen a million
years ago is just plain gullible! How do they know? Cannot be proven..

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

> Anybody that believes the dumbasses stating shit happen a million
> years ago is just plain gullible! How do they know? Cannot be proven..
It's already been proven. Even the US EPA, under Republicans, admits
Global Warming is exacerbated by CO2. It's a done deal & you know
it. In fact, the scientists have known about the greenhouse effect
for years now.

Mr Soul

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

On May 14, 7:53 am, Mr Soul <pc...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
> > Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
> > to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
> > The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
> > trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
> > dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
> > Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>
> Anyone who doesn't believe the Earth is warming up due to CO2
> emmissions is just plain stupid.
>
> Mr Soul

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Read all of this Soul Man
You are wrong!

Wes Pace

> Global Warming Will Stop, New Peer-Reviewed Study
>
> Marc Morano
>
> April 30, 2008
>
>
>
> http :// epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue id
>
>
>
> Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years.
>
>
>
> The UK Telegraph reports on April 30: "Global warming will stop until at
> least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have
> said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said
> they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in
> climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas
> emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North
> America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical
> Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average
> temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the
> UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according
> to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature." End article
> excerpt.
>
>
>
> This significant new study adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed
> literature and other scientific analyses challenging former Vice
> President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
> Climate Change (IPCC). MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen's March
> 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office
> found the Earth has had "no statistically significant warming since
> 1995."
>
>
>
> Australian paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter also noted in 2007 that
> "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based
> warming has occurred since 1998." Carter explained that the "temperature
> stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts
> per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2."
>
>
>
> An August 7, 2007, peer-reviewed study by the UK Met Office, Britain's
> version of our National Weather Service, conceded that global warming
> had stopped as well. Both the journal Nature and UK Met Office analysis
> which appeared in the journal Science predict a continuation of global
> warming in future years. [Note: Hyping yet more unproven computer models
> of the future in response to inconvenient evidence-based data is the
> primary tool of the promoters of man-made climate doom. But it now
> appears that even these computer model scenarios are failing to predict
> a man-made climate "crisis." Even the activists over at RealClimate.org
> admitted on April 10 that climate models were not "forecasts" or
> "predictions" but rather "scenarios." ]
>
>
>
> The May 1study in Nature essentially finds that global warming will have
> stopped for nearly 20 years (1998 until 2015). According to the UK
> Telegraph article; "Writing in Nature, the scientists said: 'Our results
> suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next
> decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical
> Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [man-made]
> warming.'"
>
>
>
> The UK Telegraph article by reporter Charles Clover noted the
> significant deficiencies in UN climate models: "The IPCC currently does
> not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength
> of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the
> Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever
> recorded in 1998."
>
>
>
> The evidence-based data showing the Earth's failure to continue warming
> has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear. The American
> people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll
> released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public's concern about
> man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989. Gore's $300 million
> dollar campaign to promote climate fear is attempting to convince
> Americans that they face a climate "crisis" despite the new accumulating
> scientific evidence to the contrary.
>
>
>
> The latest peer-reviewed scientific data showing the dominance of
> natural climate variability appears to be directly at odds with Gore's
> central climate message. On May 25, 2006, Gore declared, "We are the
> most powerful force of nature now. We are literally changing the
> relationship between the Earth and the Sun." Gore added that mankind's
> CO2 emissions have "the capacity to bring civilization itself to a dead
> halt." [Note: Unfortunately, children seem to be the most susceptible to
> Gore's and others baseless climate doomsday message. See: New York
> Times article: Children may be driving alarm over global warming. Also,
> read more about global warming propaganda campaign aimed at kids here. ]
>
>
>
> This new study in Nature further reveals a "tipping point" for the
> promoters of climate alarm. 2007 and now 2008 have challenged man-made
> climate fear as new peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2
> fears. A U.S. Senate minority report reveals over 400 scientists
> dissented from man-made climate fears, and more and more scientists
> continue to declare themselves skeptical of a man-made climate "crisis"
> in 2008.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sampling of key inconvenient developments for promoters of a man-made
> climate "crisis" so far in 2008: (See also related link at bottom of
> this report)
>
>
>
> 1) Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by "mystery of global warming's
> missing heat"
>
>
>
> 2) New Data from NASA's Aqua satellite is showing "greatly reduced
> future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide." (LINK )
>
>
>
> 3) Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one
> peer-reviewed paper has 'ruled out a natural cause for most of our
> recent warmth'
>
>
>
> 4) UN IPCC in 'Panic Mode' as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says
> (LINK )
>
>
>
> 5) UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri "to look into the apparent
> temperature plateau so far this century."
>
>
>
> 6) New scientific analysis shows Sun "could account for as much as 69%
> of the increase in Earth's average temperature" &
>
>
>
> 7) Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to
> .36 F rise in global temps
>
>
>
> 8) Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods - not warm
> periods - see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine
>
>
>
> 9) New York Times Laments Media's incorrect hyping of frogs and global
> warming
>
>
>
> 10) Prominent hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact
>
>
>
> 11) MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen's March 2008 presentation
> of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has
> had "no statistically significant warming since 1995."-
>
>
>
> 12) An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to
> counter UN IPCC, declaring: "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the
> Climate"
>
>
>
> 13) Emitting MORE CO2 may 'be good for life on Earth', says
> climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008.
>
>
>
> Update May 2, 2008:
>
> Marc Morano
>
> Scientists React
>
>
>
> Sampling of Scientists Commenting on 'global warming will stop until at
> least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate' study published
> in the peer-reviewed journal Nature on May 1:
>
>
>
> 1) Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Professor in the Environmental Studies
> Program at the University of Colorado reacted to this study in the
> journal Nature by declaring: "Climate models are of no practical use."
> Pielke, who is not a climate skeptic, said on April 30, "There is in
> fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be
> inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the
> next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is
> pretty much anything and everything under the sun. This means that from
> a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond
> providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over
> global climate policy."
>
>
>
> 2) Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist
> who is currently a professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic
> said on May 1: "Wow. So the refutation of a prediction of a dangerous
> warming by the world's top 2,500 scientists ;-) "does not come as a
> surprise". Note that with no global warming since 1998, the paper
> predicts 20 years of no warming. Recall that Al Gore has predicted
> global destruction in less than 8 years from now. [.] The whole
> validation of all existing climate models is (or should be) mostly based
> on the data from the previous decades or centuries. If an effect that is
> argued to be as strong as the greenhouse effect has been neglected while
> it has the power to change 60-70 years of the temperature dynamics, it
> implies the existence of a critical flaw in the whole picture."
>
>
>
> 3) UK Astronomer Dr. David Whitehouse, who authored the 2004 book The
> Sun: A Biography, said on May 1, 2008: "Isn't it curious that over the
> next decade man-made global warming will be cancelled out by natural
> cycles. It's nice that Mother Nature (not the journal) is helping us
> this way but it does beg the question as to whether the man-made effect
> was all that significant if it can be nullified this way."
>
>
>
> 4) Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar
> forecast group Weather Action, said on April 30: "It is noteworthy that
> this 'prediction' in the journal Nature coincides pretty well with
> various solar-based predictions including the solar-magnetic based
> prediction we issued from WeatherAction in Jan this year - i.e. cooling
> till 2013 at least. It seems like the 'Anything But the Sun' faction of
> UN IPCC works by copying what has already been predicted by a number of
> solar-based forecasting techniques and then attributing the cause to
> something earth-based. That way they hope to save the lie that man's
> irrelevant earth-based efforts could cause climate change. Of course the
> long term cooling change expected in sea temperatures referred to in
> this paper in Nature as 'cause' is nothing of the sort it is a
> consequence of the changes in sun-earth magnetic and particle links.
> The Nature article is in effect saying that 'Climate Change causes
> climate change'. Give us a break! Why is there a 22 year cycle in the
> solar magnetic links and also the same cycle in world temperatures? The
> reason is that the earth-sun magnetic links drive world temperatures
> (and this understanding enables successful long-range weather forecasts
> to be made). The pillars of pseudo-science writing in nature believe
> their 'sea cycle' is the driver of what happens so they will have to
> tell us that that the sun's magnetic field is driven by the Earth's
> oceans. Does anyone buy this? Application of the scientific method to
> science would be a good idea!"
>
>
>
> 5) Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the
> University of Southampton wrote on his Numbers Watch website on May 1:
> "As we were saying only last month, the motto du jour is get your
> rationalization in first. The latest wheeze among the doomsayers is that
> hell fire is being postponed. Of course, it would have been more
> impressive if it had been published before the recent decade of
> measurements showing no warming at all. As it stands, it is nothing more
> than a testament to the infinite tunability of computer models. The
> warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of
> the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due
> date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date."
>
>
>
> 6) Environmental Economist and global warming co-author Dennis Avery's
> 2006 book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, wrote on May 1:
> "How many years of declining world temperature would it take now-in the
> wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998-to break up Al Gore's
> "climate change consensus"? [.] All of this defies the "consensus" that
> human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global
> warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong
> as its Green advocates maintained. The earth's warming from 1915 to 1940
> was just about as strong as the "scary" 1975 to 1998 warming in both
> scope and duration-and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted
> CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory,
> occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions.
> Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998,
> even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly."
>
>
>
> 7) Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based
> climate and atmospheric science consultant, wrote on May 2: "Several
> teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming
> with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None - not
> one - of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998
> then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide
> concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened. Now, one
> team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming
> in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start
> in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them?"
>
>
>
> 8) Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently
> senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote on May
> 1: ".a useful quote from Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for
> Atmospheric Research: 'Too many think global warming means monotonic
> relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that
> way.' This is an amazing error. Global warming does require a
> more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (in the absence of a major
> volcanic eruption) as illustrated in all available multi-decadal global
> model runs. This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the
> 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)! Climate Science
> published a proposed test of the multi-decadal global model predictions
> (see A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement).
> Clearly, so far, the models are failing to skillfully predict the rate
> (and even the sign for the most recent years) of global warming. Andy
> Revkin should follow up his article to document what the models predict
> in terms of global warming (in Joules) over different time periods, and
> what do the observations actually show. This would be excellent
> investigative (much needed) journalism."
>
>
>
> Media Reaction:
>
>
>
> Scripps News: Globe may

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

> Read all of this Soul Man
> You are wrong!
"Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the
precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central
facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless
troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious
and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the
dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own
government is equal to the challenge."
- John McCain, 2008

Mr Soul

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

On May 14, 12:26 pm, Mr Soul <pc...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > Read all of this Soul Man
> > You are wrong!
>
> "Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the
> precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central
> facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless
> troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious
> and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the
> dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own
> government is equal to the challenge."
> - John McCain, 2008
>
> Mr Soul

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you had read the info, you would have seen where the "temp" of the
planet has not risen since 1998.
The IPCC's own people have had to admit this.

Also, maybe you haven't heard bout the volcano spewing ash down in
Chile?
Things like that & the volcanos under the Antartic, were never
"factored" in to the computer models.

But then you being you, I knew I was wasting my time.

Back to my guitar.

Wes Pace

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Mr Soul wrote:
>> Read all of this Soul Man
>> You are wrong!
> "Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the
> precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central
> facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless
> troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious
> and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the
> dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own
> government is equal to the challenge."
> - John McCain, 2008
>
> Mr Soul

Kerblammo. :-) A+ mvm

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"J.P." <jpasano@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax,com ...
>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In Lies
>> <lordkoos@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!

Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (or global
warming) is a myth or hoax or nothing can be done to prevent it.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"J.P." <jpasano@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax,com ...
>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In Lies
>> <lordkoos@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!

Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
cannot prevent.
But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?
What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
forms of energy? What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
to reforestation? What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water melting
of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
ground on Earth?
What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?
What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?
Where's the harm in any of this?

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:00:14 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampscience@tuneland,com > wrote:

>
>"J.P." <jpasano@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax,com ...
>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In Lies
>>> <lordkoos@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>
>>>World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>
>Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
>warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
>cannot prevent.
>But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?
>What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
>forms of energy? What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
>by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
>water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
>to reforestation? What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
>more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
>producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water melting
>of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
>What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
>What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
>ground on Earth?
>What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
>instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?
>What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
>What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?
>Where's the harm in any of this?
>
I used to live in Houston and work in refineries..I am all for
it...but don't try to "sell it" with bafoon shit. I do not need to be
"convinced" and making up bullshit data makes me feel it is just
another money scam. Show me the work! Fuck the talk and charities and
green groups. They are just spitting in the dirt and telling people
it's raining...if you have to lie about it then it is bullshit!
Go live next door to Mobile in Pasadena like I did. I raised so
much hell that they bought the whole neighborhood. They even made a
movie called "Rush" in my hood right before that. Three blocks from my
house. Woke up many nights with flaming 5 pound balls of plastic
raining down on the neighborhood. Called hazardous chemical firemen
out on Christmas morning because they were releasing propylene gas and
it was gagging the old lady who was several months pg. I imagine I
have done as much bitching about toxic chemicals as anyone you know.
And I got results...so back off Bozos...put up or shut up..