On 7/31/2012 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-
says...

On 7/31/12 8:32 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:55:34 -0400, X ` Man wrote:

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats who is correct?

Yes!



It's sort of sad that bottomfeeders like you and your buttbuddy Meyer
find it necessary to change the posts of others to make them fit into
your narrow little minds. But, what the hell, that's all you
Conservatrashers have these days, right?

John simply has a little fun with the assholes. Oops that's me.


I'm glad you are setting things straight.

On Jul 31, 8:57*am, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...



As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

The military has a plan to invade Canada. The military has plans for
every contingency.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hp/t-9586.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...ecret-defence-
plans-included-file-on-invasion-of-fiji/story-e6frg8yo-1226389513967

It doens't matter whose military it is, they are always planning for
every possible scenario.

Say what?
Didn't y'all learn your lesson in 1812?

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats? Oh, wait...

---------------------------------
And your English degree gives you more credibility?

On 7/31/2012 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats? Oh, wait...

---------------------------------
And your English degree gives you more credibility?

Do you really believe he has that degree, he has lied about each and
every other one of his and his wifes? Why would you take his word for
this one, especially when you see how he presents himself here. Do you
really think he studied English beyond the 5th grade?

On 7/31/12 6:12 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/31/2012 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats? Oh, wait...

---------------------------------
And your English degree gives you more credibility?

Do you really believe he has that degree, he has lied about each and
every other one of his and his wifes? Why would you take his word for
this one, especially when you see how he presents himself here. Do you
really think he studied English beyond the 5th grade?


What a funny little failure you are, Snotty. How's that Never Winning
Kiddie Racing Team doing these days?

--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

On 7/31/2012 6:31 PM, X ` Man wrote:
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

You are a liberal because your union thug handlers instructed you to be so.

On 7/31/2012 7:20 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/31/2012 6:31 PM, X ` Man wrote:
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

You are a liberal because your union thug handlers instructed you to be so.

Wow, is that his sig? LOL!

On 7/31/12 7:48 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/31/2012 7:20 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/31/2012 6:31 PM, X ` Man wrote:
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

You are a liberal because your union thug handlers instructed you to
be so.

Wow, is that his sig? LOL!


What's your sig? "I am stupid. Please take a pencil and put a quarter in
the cup."


--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

On Jul 31, 8:57*pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/31/12 7:48 PM, JustWait wrote:

On 7/31/2012 7:20 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/31/2012 6:31 PM, X ` Man wrote:
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

You are a liberal because your union thug handlers instructed you to
be so.

Wow, is that his sig? LOL!

What's your sig? "I am stupid. Please take a pencil and put a quarter in
the cup."


Snotty wouldn't be near that polite... more like 'put some bills in
the f**king cup and don't touch that f**kin' pencil".

On 7/31/12 9:39 PM, North Star wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:57 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/31/12 7:48 PM, JustWait wrote:

On 7/31/2012 7:20 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/31/2012 6:31 PM, X ` Man wrote:
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

You are a liberal because your union thug handlers instructed you to
be so.

Wow, is that his sig? LOL!

What's your sig? "I am stupid. Please take a pencil and put a quarter in
the cup."


Snotty wouldn't be near that polite... more like 'put some bills in
the f**king cup and don't touch that f**kin' pencil".



snerk Probably his family motto.

--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.