|
So much for global warming . . .
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message om... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others? Pop quiz: In the past 20 years, who made more money, AIG or Dave and Karen? If AIG had actually made money, it wouldn't have needed bailing out by the Federal Gummit. Here's someone else who actually did make a bundle: Bernie Madoff. Yup, he made so much more money than me that we're not even in the same financial galaxy. On the other hand, I can look at myself in the mirror, even if I end up asking people if they want to supersize their order. You must know Joe of "Red Cloud" infamy? He's a fry cook at Mickey D's. Had to go begging for his job back after his coffee import trip sunk after he prematurely abandoned ship. Now he has dreams of supersizing a boat to carry and sink an entire container of coffee. Too bad he doesn't work on his paucity of sailing know-how instead. Wilbur Hubbard My first job, while in High School, was working at Burger King. I'm not back to that level yet, but the way things are going, "One never knows, do one?" I'm not worried. I've made my millions and have invested wisely - as in offshore numbered accounts paying a guaranteed reasonable interest. The other day Donald Trump's attorney approached me for a loan. Wilbur Hubbard |
So much for global warming . . .
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said: A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Why not? You post them all the time. Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator. They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why Texas has so much installed wind plant. Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG. Not that I really like either. Cheers Martin |
So much for global warming . . .
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:57:10 -0500, said: Doing any upgrades on GF this winter? Nah. Mostly maintenance. Disassembled the boom to reattach a block on the outhaul car, replace the depth sounder because the display finally gave up the ghost, replace the pump in the FW system, etc., etc. My pump starting acting up this year too! Cheers Martin |
So much for global warming . . .
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said: A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Why not? You post them all the time. Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator. They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why Texas has so much installed wind plant. Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG. Not that I really like either. Cheers Martin I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every month for clean energy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said: A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Why not? You post them all the time. Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator. They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why Texas has so much installed wind plant. Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG. Not that I really like either. Cheers Martin I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every month for clean energy. Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)...... Cheers Martin |
So much for global warming . . .
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said: A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Why not? You post them all the time. Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator. They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why Texas has so much installed wind plant. Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG. Not that I really like either. Cheers Martin I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every month for clean energy. Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)...... Cheers Martin There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive. Compared to coal? The thing about Wyoming coal is that the land isn't particularly valuable. Not enough rain. Casady |
So much for global warming . . .
"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. . On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive. Compared to coal? The thing about Wyoming coal is that the land isn't particularly valuable. Not enough rain. Casady No... didn't mean to imply that. I believe they use pit and shaft mining. I'd prefer it over coal for sure. http://www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/erhs/...ining_info.htm -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said: A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Why not? You post them all the time. Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator. They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why Texas has so much installed wind plant. Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG. Not that I really like either. Cheers Martin I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every month for clean energy. Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)...... Cheers Martin There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive. Compare it to coal mining. Actually burning coal releases more radioactive nucleotides into the atmosphere than any reactor. Compare the mining to pipeline breakages, tanker groundings, and the mess that drilling can produce. Cheers Martin |
So much for global warming . . .
On Jan 9, 11:01*am, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:19:49 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll said: while you conservitives Um...you're making yourself look silly. I think you should go back and read a few of Marty's posts before calling him that particular name. I dont really give a flying fig he used a general term as did I. the old greenies dont pay taxes argument is and always was BS. |
So much for global warming . . .
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said: A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Why not? You post them all the time. Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator. They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why Texas has so much installed wind plant. Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG. Not that I really like either. Cheers Martin I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every month for clean energy. Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)...... Cheers Martin There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive. Compare it to coal mining. Actually burning coal releases more radioactive nucleotides into the atmosphere than any reactor. Compare the mining to pipeline breakages, tanker groundings, and the mess that drilling can produce. Cheers Martin I think that given the current alternatives, it's a technology that should be revisited. Clearly, safety and storing/destroying the byproduct are the most important concerns. From what I've read, the radiation from mining uranium is equivalent to mining granite. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:34:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: I'm not worried. I've made my millions and have invested wisely - as in offshore numbered accounts Anybody want to get in on the IRS's bounty for turning in tax cheats? The IRS is supposed to ignore discrepancies of less than $100. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global warming alarmists and kook believers. Wilbur Hubbard The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming By Steve Connor, Independent UK Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 16, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen. Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover. The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world. Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions. However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future. Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades. However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period. Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today. "The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming. "In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification." Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform. "One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added. Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years. © 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ |
So much for global warming . . .
On Jan 16, 6:31*pm, hpeer wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Sea ice at same levels as 1979. *Another nail in the coffin of global warming alarmists and kook believers. Wilbur Hubbard The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming By Steve Connor, Independent UK Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 16, 2009http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen. Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover. The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world. Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions. However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future. Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades. However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period. Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today. "The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming. "In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification." Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform. "One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added. Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years. © 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved. View this story online at:http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ but you dont understand...... Fox News would never lie. |
So much for global warming . . .
hpeer wrote:
The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming By Steve Connor, Independent UK Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 16, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ It's polar shift...the North Pole is moving itslef to Ironwood, Michigan.... |
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message om... hpeer wrote: The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming By Steve Connor, Independent UK Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 16, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ It's polar shift...the North Pole is moving itslef to Ironwood, Michigan.... Here in Wisconsin we've had negative degrees for several days. Global warming would be welcome. |
So much for global warming . . .
KLC Lewis wrote:
"katy" wrote in message om... hpeer wrote: The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming By Steve Connor, Independent UK Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 16, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ It's polar shift...the North Pole is moving itslef to Ironwood, Michigan.... Here in Wisconsin we've had negative degrees for several days. Global warming would be welcome. hahahaha...being fromMichigan,I hae been getting aily weather reports frommy aughter...nasty nasty nasty...even here in coastalNC we ha 10 egrees last night an my son reprote they ha 8F in Atlanta!Unfortunately,this type of climate conition oesinicate some sort of change in overall climate conitions,often times warming (chaos theory)...guess we'll all fin out later than sooner... |
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message om... hahahaha...being fromMichigan,I hae been getting aily weather reports frommy aughter...nasty nasty nasty...even here in coastalNC we ha 10 egrees last night an my son reprote they ha 8F in Atlanta!Unfortunately,this type of climate conition oesinicate some sort of change in overall climate conitions,often times warming (chaos theory)...guess we'll all fin out later than sooner... Katy, I'm guessing that "sundowners" began hours ago. lol |
So much for global warming . . .
katy wrote:
KLC Lewis wrote: "katy" wrote in message om... hpeer wrote: The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming By Steve Connor, Independent UK Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 16, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ It's polar shift...the North Pole is moving itslef to Ironwood, Michigan.... Here in Wisconsin we've had negative degrees for several days. Global warming would be welcome. hahahaha...being fromMichigan,I hae been getting aily weather reports frommy aughter...nasty nasty nasty...even here in coastalNC we ha 10 egrees last night an my son reprote they ha 8F in Atlanta!Unfortunately,this type of climate conition oesinicate some sort of change in overall climate conitions,often times warming (chaos theory)...guess we'll all fin out later than sooner... Help is on the way Katy, Norman Wells NWT just reported 12 degrees, that's 56 for you 'Mericans... a record high... Cheers Martin |
So much for global warming . . .
hpeer wrote in
m: Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years. The Government Grant machine is running MUCH better than the economy..... |
So much for global warming . . .
katy wrote in
om: It's polar shift...the North Pole is moving itslef to Ironwood, Michigan.... I told 'em running that much power on VLF to submarines, into that huge antenna in Michigan to Minnesota was bad for Earth. Actually, there is already ONE North pole showing up in the SOUTH Pacific offshore of Antarctica. We're overdue for the pole reversal that has occurred hundreds of times in Earth's past, as recorded at the Atlantic Rift running down the middle of the ocean. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/10...etic-reversal/ Religion and government bureaucrats are working around the clock trying to prove all this is caused by YOU and your Ford Expedition in the driveway so you can be taxed even more before the pole flips and nothing happens, other than the Ford compass points the wrong way until the software is updated. Religion, especially, is doing its best to turn 2012 into a giant profit center to line their pockets because follower sheeple won't be needing money where they're going.......or not going, as the case may prove. |
So much for global warming . . .
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:12:29 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "katy" wrote in message . com... hahahaha...being fromMichigan,I hae been getting aily weather reports frommy aughter...nasty nasty nasty...even here in coastalNC we ha 10 egrees last night an my son reprote they ha 8F in Atlanta!Unfortunately,this type of climate conition oesinicate some sort of change in overall climate conitions,often times warming (chaos theory)...guess we'll all fin out later than sooner... Katy, I'm guessing that "sundowners" began hours ago. lol Nope. Katy is famous for her typing ability. There is even a word for it: Katytype. She also is losing her vision, which doesn't help matters. |
So much for global warming . . .
KLC Lewis wrote:
"katy" wrote in message om... hahahaha...being fromMichigan,I hae been getting aily weather reports frommy aughter...nasty nasty nasty...even here in coastalNC we ha 10 egrees last night an my son reprote they ha 8F in Atlanta!Unfortunately,this type of climate conition oesinicate some sort of change in overall climate conitions,often times warming (chaos theory)...guess we'll all fin out later than sooner... Katy, I'm guessing that "sundowners" began hours ago. lol Nah...what happened is someone,notme...tipped a glassof soda on the jeyboard and half my keys are sticking beyond my usual katytype typing.... |
So much for global warming . . .
Marty wrote:
katy wrote: KLC Lewis wrote: "katy" wrote in message om... hpeer wrote: The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming By Steve Connor, Independent UK Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 16, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/ It's polar shift...the North Pole is moving itslef to Ironwood, Michigan.... Here in Wisconsin we've had negative degrees for several days. Global warming would be welcome. hahahaha...being fromMichigan,I hae been getting aily weather reports frommy aughter...nasty nasty nasty...even here in coastalNC we ha 10 egrees last night an my son reprote they ha 8F in Atlanta!Unfortunately,this type of climate conition oesinicate some sort of change in overall climate conitions,often times warming (chaos theory)...guess we'll all fin out later than sooner... Help is on the way Katy, Norman Wells NWT just reported 12 degrees, that's 56 for you 'Mericans... a record high... Cheers Martin See? What'di'tellya? The whole pole has shifted down to Michigan... |
So much for global warming . . .
|
So much for global warming . . .
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:31:06 -0500, katy
wrote: wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:12:29 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "katy" wrote in message om... hahahaha...being fromMichigan,I hae been getting aily weather reports frommy aughter...nasty nasty nasty...even here in coastalNC we ha 10 egrees last night an my son reprote they ha 8F in Atlanta!Unfortunately,this type of climate conition oesinicate some sort of change in overall climate conitions,often times warming (chaos theory)...guess we'll all fin out later than sooner... Katy, I'm guessing that "sundowners" began hours ago. lol Nope. Katy is famous for her typing ability. There is even a word for it: Katytype. She also is losing her vision, which doesn't help matters. Plus a bottleof Spritedown the keyboard... Coudln't hurt! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com