On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.

Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's. Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?
Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?
All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

Take the other issue global warming. The issue here
is whether the cause is man-made. There is lots of evidence
that climatic fluxuations are primarily caused by our
Sun and then things like volcanos. I agree there is evidence
that things are warming up. That does not mean man caused
it. What was the Sun doing during the Little Ice Age?
How many volcano eruptions occurred during that time period?

The Sun is much more massive than the earth and it is
undergoing nuclear fission, releasing uncountable amounts
of energy.

************************************************** **********
Excerpt from:
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment
on the increasing number of publications that point to varying
solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: "As more
and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun s
how up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly
taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They
have included solar variability in their simulations of the past
century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal
role in triggering droughts and cold snaps."
************************************************** *****************

When people express opposing viewpoints, there is major
bashing on those with opposing viewpoints.

That is what how Nazi's started, with hate talk, followed
beatings and by outright violence, then killing and crimes
against humanity.

This is what we are starting to see now. Look at all the
hateful talk by the liberals. Can you not doubt that it
is inflaming people to do disrespectful thing like this to
veterans. I am not hateful, but I will not stand by and say
nothing. Our Veterans deserve our respect.

How about Rosie O'Donnel? That woman is angry and
clearly has mental problems. Should she be allowed to
act in such a manner on TV? Apparently we have no
standards in this country. It is allowed to take place, just
for the ratings. How about Elizabeth Hasselbeck? Was
she every angry, hateful, or nasty? No. She tried her best
to be polite to that nasty woman O'Donnel.

The pattern is repeated over and over again. Angry Kook
liberals trying to inflame a small minority. They are angry
that there is a silent majority with enough common sense
to ignore their thoughtless viewpoint.

Nazi propaganda minster, Goebbles said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. This seems
to be the creedo of the kook fringe of Democratic Party.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

Ask anyone in law enforcement. Hate starts with yelling and
vile language, then turns to smashing inanimate objects,
then to hurting people, then to killing people.

Now go back and look at all the threads on alt.sailing.asa
and see who is using the profanity the most often. And in
cases where flames go back and forth--who starts the
vile language. It is clear to me that the liberal kooks are
the ones with no tolerance for discussion.

Again, I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes their
viewpoint less credible. it is too bad they cannot open
their eyes to any other possibility, even such an obvious
factor such as fluxuations of the Sun.

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 29, 8:26 pm, Jeff wrote:

It is a good assumption--the labeling of Veterans
as criminals is the common view of the liberals.

Common view of liberals? You have so much hate in you Bart, you need
a long vacation. seriously.

No hate in me Jeff. If you want hate, look to kook liberals
like Swabby with his vile language.

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

I just stated I'm glad the liberals are kooks. It makes
their viewpoint less credible.

Well, you have to do something to combat the truth.

Who do you think has been calling the Conservcatives
Nazi's. Who regularly bash the military and those who serve?
Do you remember Vietnam and how Veterans were treated?
All because a traitor like Hanoi Jane convinced many people
our solders were baby killers.

I've never called conservatives nazis nor do I believe they are. I am quite
happy to call those in the current administration jerks, liars, and totally
corrupt, however.

Hate to tell you Bart, but the VN war ended long ago. We're fighting and
dying in Iraq. A totally unjustified war with no end in sight.

Take the other issue global warming. The issue here

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim disreputable?
Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you won't,
because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with hard
evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily accessible
by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do yourself a
favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I did, and I came
to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive evidence that the
human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with
hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily
accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do
yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I
did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive
evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take a
wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do what I
can to not pollute.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to
GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take
a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do
what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive evidence,
there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive. The smartest
people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either bandwagon,
simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only to believe
what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth. Your
objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm a
bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of global
pollution. GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but since all the
rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have been swept aside.
While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and getting all the lipservice
of the various media, the planet is up to its ears in refuse, polluted water
and air, and landfills. There is an estimated 50 billion metric tons of
refuse and garbage being dumped in the world's oceans annually, and you guys
are crowing about something that most likely will be laughed at 20 years
from now. Time will likely prove Al Gore and his minions to be buffoons at
best, and idiots who farted around while the planet was destroyed at worst.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor"
to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive
evidence, there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive. The
smartest people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either
bandwagon, simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only
to believe what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth.
Your objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus
cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm a
bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of global
pollution. GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but since all the
rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have been swept
aside. While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and getting all the
lipservice of the various media, the planet is up to its ears in refuse,
polluted water and air, and landfills. There is an estimated 50 billion
metric tons of refuse and garbage being dumped in the world's oceans
annually, and you guys are crowing about something that most likely will
be laughed at 20 years from now. Time will likely prove Al Gore and his
minions to be buffoons at best, and idiots who farted around while the
planet was destroyed at worst.

Max



You just said the evidence isn't definitive. Now you're saying that man's
involvement is "minor at best." Which is it? You're very, very confused it
seems. Keep pumping those toxins into the environment and see what happens.
Tip: environment includes the air.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?

How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.

I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in
this issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of
the issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither
side has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime
contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.

You obviously haven't read my posts very well. As for definitive
evidence, there is evidence on both sides, but neither is definitive.
The smartest people in the scientific community aren't jumping on either
bandwagon, simply because the issue is *not* definitive. You choose only
to believe what you wish to believe, not what is necessarily the truth.
Your objectivity has been replaced with evangelistic zeal for a bogus
cause.

If you'd actually read my posts in the other thread, you'd know that I'm
a bit miffed at the GW folks for distracting from the real issues of
global pollution. *****GW caused by humans is likely minor at best, but
since all the rhetoric is now given to it, the issues of pollution have
been swept aside.***** While you GW fanatics are waving the co2 flag and
getting all the lipservice of the various media, the planet is up to its
ears in refuse, polluted water and air, and landfills. There is an
estimated 50 billion metric tons of refuse and garbage being dumped in
the world's oceans annually, and you guys are crowing about something
that most likely will be laughed at 20 years from now. Time will likely
prove Al Gore and his minions to be buffoons at best, and idiots who
farted around while the planet was destroyed at worst.

Max



You just said the evidence isn't definitive. Now you're saying that man's
involvement is "minor at best." Which is it? You're very, very confused it
seems.

Reading 101 for the comprehensionally challenged: See the above
**highlighted** passage in my response. Note the word "likely." "Likely"
doesn't mean "definitive." It means likely. End of lesson.

Keep pumping those toxins into the environment and see what happens. Tip:
environment includes the air.

GW isn't about air pollution. It doesn't even address the issue. It only
postulates (see, not definitive) that the Earth is warming due to
human-induced co2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere. No lipservice is
given to the air we breathe. To the contrary, the whole GW evangelistic
movement is ignoring air pollution in favor of carbon neutrality. It
ignores nitrous oxides and a host of other man-made pollutants. It is a
distraction from the important issues of planetary pollution.

Max

Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?
How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.
I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife with
hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers easily
accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW evangelista. Do
yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue, Jon. I
did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side has definitive
evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor" to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and take a
wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll do what I
can to not pollute.



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Like fear-mongering, angry assholes like Cheney?
How come Halliburton, Bush, or Karl Rove didn't make it into that
sentence?

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global warming.
I'll ask again: are all the scientists who dispute your claim
disreputable? Fact is, there are at least as many against as for in this
issue.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear?" I'm sure you
won't, because you have no time for the opposing side, but it is rife
with hard evidence, all references provided and the original papers
easily accessible by anyone, that dispute the claims of the GW
evangelista. Do yourself a favor and begin to examine both sides of the
issue, Jon. I did, and I came to one glaring conclusion: neither side
has definitive evidence that the human race is the "prime contributor"
to GW.

Max



So, according to you, there's no definitive evidence. Ok. So, I guess we
should just keep pumping tons of pollution into the air and water and
take a wait and see approach... according to you of course. I think I'll
do what I can to not pollute.



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do you
think this is net good?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...



I don't that that's what was said at all. Nice try, but a gross
exaggeration and manipulation of the discussion.

But you seem to have placed yourself on an undefendable position. I've
heard EXACTLY the same from others who blindly defend the unfounded
"man-made GW" hypothesis without looking at all the facts.


The facts are the facts. We are pumping tons of toxins into the air. Do you
think this is net good?



No. But facts are facts. And you're relating something that is FACT to
something that is NOT FACT.

Can you see the difference?

Pumping CO2 into the air may not be a good thing, but there is not
proven relationship between CO2 levels and GW except as a product, not a
cause.