|
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Reggie Smithers wrote: JimH wrote: "Reggie Smithers" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: So go out and enjoy your boat Doug. ;-) BTW: Do not group me with Bert or anyone else here. Instead try to address my questions/comments directly in the future. Some words of advice: You are not going to change the world by posting your OT crap here or at any other NG or forum. Instead, relax and post boating related questions here. Take a deep breath...........exhale...................inhale.. .................exhale.............inhale....... Aaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm.............;-) Giddle up. Hey dummy, it's 'giddyup' not 'giddle up'. Jeesh. It is nice to see you doing a great job of Netcopping the NG. I was wondering what "giddle up" was, but my innate politeness prevented me from asking. I will admit, though, that I was envisioning...pancakes. You are just too nice. I could not resist though. ;-) |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote: JimH wrote: "Reggie Smithers" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: So go out and enjoy your boat Doug. ;-) BTW: Do not group me with Bert or anyone else here. Instead try to address my questions/comments directly in the future. Some words of advice: You are not going to change the world by posting your OT crap here or at any other NG or forum. Instead, relax and post boating related questions here. Take a deep breath...........exhale...................inhale.. .................exhale.............inhale........ Aaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm.............;-) Giddle up. Hey dummy, it's 'giddyup' not 'giddle up'. Jeesh. It is nice to see you doing a great job of Netcopping the NG. I was wondering what "giddle up" was, but my innate politeness prevented me from asking. I will admit, though, that I was envisioning...pancakes. I was wondering too. Held off to see what comments would follow and JimH straightened the mistake out. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Sometimes comfort trumps everything else. There's absolutely nothing you can
do about it. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: That's unfair. Locking out a scientist of the discussion because he believes differently is the whole issue - not so much what he believes or doesn't believe. Nobody "locked a scientist out of the discussion." If that MIT guy wanted to discuss his scientific observations which indicate that either global warming is not happening, or is totally unconnected to man's activities, that would have been fine. I would have been quite interested to read them, because I've been asking for such info a long time. But he had no scienctific statements to offer at all. That op-ed piece was a fact-free (actually a fact-contradictory) screed that would have been right at home on the Rush Limbaugh show. "Let's pretend liberals are still in charge and whine about how they're f&^&ing everything up." The guy even complained about being "intimidated" by Al Gore, who had to hire a woman to coach him on being an alpha male! When you present some science, I'll be glad to read it. When you (or Bert Robbins, whose posts I alomost never read) present some BS right-wing blah-blah then you can expect it to get the reception it deserves. Regards Doug King |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Black Dog wrote: basskisser wrote: RCE wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message groups.com... You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a pace that hasn't happened before? How do we possible know that for a fact? Ice borings. Those ice borings show atmospheric CO2 content. They us NOTHING at all about temperature. Nope, ice borings show freeze/thaw cycles. See: http://www.teachersdomain.org/9-12/s...and/index.html |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote: JimH wrote: "Reggie Smithers" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: So go out and enjoy your boat Doug. ;-) BTW: Do not group me with Bert or anyone else here. Instead try to address my questions/comments directly in the future. Some words of advice: You are not going to change the world by posting your OT crap here or at any other NG or forum. Instead, relax and post boating related questions here. Take a deep breath...........exhale...................inhale.. .................exhale.............inhale....... Aaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm.............;-) Giddle up. Hey dummy, it's 'giddyup' not 'giddle up'. Jeesh. It is nice to see you doing a great job of Netcopping the NG. I was wondering what "giddle up" was, but my innate politeness prevented me from asking. I will admit, though, that I was envisioning...pancakes. lol, that must be what happens when you read the NG before breakfast |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Now see what you started Bill? ;-) Everyone has an opinion...................no one is going to change the opinion of others.........as with politics and religion..........the beat goes on................................ Of more importance to me at this moment..........I will be washing the windows on the house tomorrow, replacing some exterior lighting wiring and fixtures, getting the summer stuff out of the shed, getting the lawn equipment started and putting the snow blower to bed. Friday I haul my boat to the marina and start working on her. It was a long winter (a tie in to the original topic). Carry on folks. We have so much rain, can not go boating in the rivers. Closed to boat traffic. Can not finish the house painting. Raining. 28 of the last 29 days. Ma Nature must think we are Oregon. They require 10 dry days before finishing the replaster of the pool. Maybe June? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG6EI83BM5.DTL Sorry to read that Bill. I spent a lot of time in the SF/Oakland area and was able to see many of the waterfront attractions in SF and Sausalito areas. How lucky you are to live in such a nice area of the country, although you certainly pay the price with housing and the general cost of living there. I grew up here, so got used to the prices at a young age. Have also lived in Dayton, OH and Biloxi, MS for employment and will pay the prices. But since I bought my home in 1979, I owe very little. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
wrote in message oups.com... How do you know it is happening at a faster or slower pace? The Wooly Mammoths were flash frozen a while back. Had to be a fast change in temperature with high winds associated with the temperature change. I always took that as evidence of the Great Flood of Noah Lots of convincing evidence of a great flood. South Americans have it in their history. The mammoths were more likely gotten by a small meteorite. Hit the earth, caused a wobble in the spin, and tthe dust cooled the day, flash freezer. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
basskisser wrote:
Black Dog wrote: basskisser wrote: RCE wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message legroups.com... You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a pace that hasn't happened before? How do we possible know that for a fact? Ice borings. Those ice borings show atmospheric CO2 content. They us NOTHING at all about temperature. Nope, ice borings show freeze/thaw cycles. See: http://www.teachersdomain.org/9-12/s...and/index.html Didn't see that there. Only this "For example, scientists can determine temperature by analyzing the ratio of different forms, or isotopes, of oxygen atoms in the core." I wasn't aware that O isotopes were that temperature sensitive, to detect changes in fractions of degrees. So I take back my NOTHING. But I'd like to see data and methods. I've done a bit of work with fluid inclusions in minerals - and ice is a mineral - but that work has a pretty hefty margin of error. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
wrote in message oups.com... How do you know it is happening at a faster or slower pace? The Wooly Mammoths were flash frozen a while back. Had to be a fast change in temperature with high winds associated with the temperature change. I always took that as evidence of the Great Flood of Noah Wait a minute. I just took a test on that. Wasn't it the Great Flood of Moses? RCE |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"DSK" wrote in message ... Sometimes comfort trumps everything else. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: That's unfair. Locking out a scientist of the discussion because he believes differently is the whole issue - not so much what he believes or doesn't believe. Nobody "locked a scientist out of the discussion." If that MIT guy wanted to discuss his scientific observations which indicate that either global warming is not happening, or is totally unconnected to man's activities, that would have been fine. I would have been quite interested to read them, because I've been asking for such info a long time. But he had no scienctific statements to offer at all. That op-ed piece was a fact-free (actually a fact-contradictory) screed that would have been right at home on the Rush Limbaugh show. "Let's pretend liberals are still in charge and whine about how they're f&^&ing everything up." The guy even complained about being "intimidated" by Al Gore, who had to hire a woman to coach him on being an alpha male! When you present some science, I'll be glad to read it. When you (or Bert Robbins, whose posts I alomost never read) present some BS right-wing blah-blah then you can expect it to get the reception it deserves. Regards Doug King It's part of the culture of academia debates. When some PhD presents a paper outlining a particular theory, it is usually attacked with vengeance by he's or her peers. The critics are not required to prove otherwise or offer an opposing theory, but just to identify the flaws in the publisher's theory or method of investigation, thus negating it's value. Crazy, but it is a self-policing system that works in their circles. RCE |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"RCE" wrote in message I always took that as evidence of the Great Flood of Noah Wait a minute. I just took a test on that. Wasn't it the Great Flood of Moses? Naw...... It was Johnstown, PA. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"RCE" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... How do you know it is happening at a faster or slower pace? The Wooly Mammoths were flash frozen a while back. Had to be a fast change in temperature with high winds associated with the temperature change. I always took that as evidence of the Great Flood of Noah Wait a minute. I just took a test on that. Wasn't it the Great Flood of Moses? RCE Not a good test taker are you? |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
If that MIT guy wanted to discuss his scientific observations which
indicate that either global warming is not happening, or is totally unconnected to man's activities, that would have been fine. I would have been quite interested to read them, because I've been asking for such info a long time. RCE wrote: It's part of the culture of academia debates. When some PhD presents a paper outlining a particular theory, it is usually attacked with vengeance by he's or her peers. Sure. It's part of the "publish-or-perish" world. Especially as grad students proliferate and grant money dries up... the competition is leading a shark mentality... in some fields it's been that way for years. ... The critics are not required to prove otherwise or offer an opposing theory, but just to identify the flaws in the publisher's theory or method of investigation, thus negating it's value. Crazy, but it is a self-policing system that works in their circles. It's not a perfect system, but it does lead to the honing of a number of new concepts & good ideas, new technology, etc etc. It's generally not considered part of the this game to talk politics or bring in personalities (some people can't help it though). Some years ago I did a good bit of research & writing and had it all stolen for publication. Didn't make a big splash but it fed the machine. DSK |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On 12 Apr 2006 16:52:45 -0700, "JimH" wrote:
DSK wrote: All the people I've heard saying this are right-wingers who claim it's what the enviro-whackos & "the left" are saying. No scientists, no Greens, no environmentalists, and no Democrats are saying it at all. But that's OK, it makes it easy to tell where people get their info from. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: You mean like MIT? When did the Wall Street Journal's op-ed become a division a MIT? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Oh - wait, this is terribly inconvenient for your side. "My side" is the side that wants to put "conserve" back in conservatism. I guess you're claiming to be on the 'let's make a quick buck screwing the environment while it lasts' side? Feel free to ignore it. :) Ignore a guy who claims the Bush Administration is handing out science grants based on favoritism to liberals? Ignore a guy who claims he was intimidated by Al Gore? Not likely. I'd like to see what his environmental science observations are. But as for his political speechifyin', as far as I care you can trumpet it from the housetops. It's the same paranoid nonsense that from day one has been embarassing what few neo-cons aren't totally whacko. DSK How is boating on your end DSK? Tell us about your boat. Do you own one? Do you even own a badge? I don't recall deputizing you, but you're welcome to get on the bandwagon! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
How is boating on your end DSK?
Tell us about your boat. Do you own one? JohnH wrote: Do you even own a badge? I don't recall deputizing you, but you're welcome to get on the bandwagon! Hey that's cool... a new activity for your little club... Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! Foul!" if anybody points out the little flaws in logic & fact. Then you can complain about how the darn fag-loving traitor libby-rulls hog the spotlight. Very intelligent... I bet you guys could find those pesky WMDs if you got together on it... DSK |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:46:09 -0400, DSK wrote:
How is boating on your end DSK? Tell us about your boat. Do you own one? JohnH wrote: Do you even own a badge? I don't recall deputizing you, but you're welcome to get on the bandwagon! Hey that's cool... a new activity for your little club... Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:
Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
JohnH wrote:
Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. -- Not directly... and I'm not trying to heap any fuel on this particularl fire. But the Bush/Cheney Cheerleading Squad, of whom you are a charter member, get very incensed and tend to pile on any time statements are made which are not flattering to the current Administration. I guess it's all part of being "fair and balanced." Anyway, I have fallen off the wagon with regard to posting more off topic than on. No excuses. Regards Doug King |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. How the hell did I get thrown into this???? |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. How the hell did I get thrown into this???? You woke up this morning. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. How the hell did I get thrown into this???? You woke up this morning. No I didn't. I am still asleep. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:46:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:46:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas? Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these things for over a year. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:46:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas? Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these things for over a year. Doug, why do you find it necessary to resort to insults or other personal attacks when you are backed into a corner with *facts*? I had the same experience with you in another thread and find that this to be a reoccurring MO of yours.........and one that is certainly not becoming of you. You do not have to be the expert on everything and it is OK to be wrong once and a while. ;-) Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
... You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas? Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these things for over a year. Doug, why do you find it necessary to resort to insults or other personal attacks when you are backed into a corner with *facts*? I had the same experience with you in another thread and find that this to be a reoccurring MO of yours.........and one that is certainly not becoming of you. You do not have to be the expert on everything and it is OK to be wrong once and a while. ;-) Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family. It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the game: 1) He says he didn't vote for Bush. 2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration. 3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you understand the rest, right? |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:28:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas? Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these things for over a year. Doug, why do you find it necessary to resort to insults or other personal attacks when you are backed into a corner with *facts*? I had the same experience with you in another thread and find that this to be a reoccurring MO of yours.........and one that is certainly not becoming of you. You do not have to be the expert on everything and it is OK to be wrong once and a while. ;-) Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family. It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the game: 1) He says he didn't vote for Bush. 2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration. 3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you understand the rest, right? You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above. There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support. Where you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me. You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'. I see no need for the political rhetoric here. As you've shown above, it leads only to personal attacks. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"JohnH" wrote in message
... Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family. It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the game: 1) He says he didn't vote for Bush. 2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration. 3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you understand the rest, right? You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above. There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support. Where you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me. You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'. John, I haven't even bothered to look. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:32:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family. It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the game: 1) He says he didn't vote for Bush. 2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration. 3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you understand the rest, right? You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above. There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support. Where you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me. You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'. John, I haven't even bothered to look. You made a wise decision. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:32:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family. It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the game: 1) He says he didn't vote for Bush. 2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration. 3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you understand the rest, right? You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above. There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support. Where you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me. You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'. John, I haven't even bothered to look. You made a wise decision. No - busy. Garden, boat prep, garden, boat prep, garden, practice fly casting in front yard (to amuse neighbors), garden, boat prep..... |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:30:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:32:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family. It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the game: 1) He says he didn't vote for Bush. 2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration. 3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you understand the rest, right? You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above. There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support. Where you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me. You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'. John, I haven't even bothered to look. You made a wise decision. No - busy. Garden, boat prep, garden, boat prep, garden, practice fly casting in front yard (to amuse neighbors), garden, boat prep..... Just don't forget to get your boat ready for the season! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Bryan" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun by your clone, Bert. :-) Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe. What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get between you and Doug)? His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the same time? Mars Rovers? You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based, doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming, don't you? Some questions for you. Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra? What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally occurring? What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late 90s? Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing universal heath care? Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major truths being discovered. BTW what ever happened to the hockey stick model? --This space available for a really clever sig |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
JimH wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote: Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!! {to any rebuttal} JohnH wrote: Have I posted some of that, Doug? -- Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls. Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of posts/thread I regularly skip. DSK Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before Christmas. John H You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often. How the hell did I get thrown into this???? You woke up this morning. No I didn't. I am still asleep. Then the answer is you got thrown in while you were sleeping! |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Hans wrote: On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Bryan" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun by your clone, Bert. :-) Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe. What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get between you and Doug)? His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the same time? Mars Rovers? You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based, doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming, don't you? Some questions for you. Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra? Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling trends. What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally occurring? Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most things. What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late 90s? It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing universal heath care? A Washington lobbyist. Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major truths being discovered. Horse****. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:25:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Hans wrote: Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing universal heath care? Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major truths being discovered. Ahhhh. Another member of the Flat Earth Society. Another clueless liberal who has nothing to add. BTW the flat earth theory was, pretty much a universal truth by the leading scientists of the middle ages. --This space available for a really clever sig |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote: Hans wrote: On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Bryan" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun by your clone, Bert. :-) Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe. What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get between you and Doug)? His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the same time? Mars Rovers? You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based, doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming, don't you? Some questions for you. Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra? Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling trends. What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally occurring? Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most things. Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point? And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make little or no difference. What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late 90s? It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values mean. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing universal heath care? A Washington lobbyist. Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major truths being discovered. Horse****. Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's Cross hooker to shame. --This space available for a really clever sig |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Hans wrote: On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Hans wrote: On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Bryan" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun by your clone, Bert. :-) Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe. What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get between you and Doug)? His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the same time? Mars Rovers? You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based, doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming, don't you? Some questions for you. Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra? Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling trends. What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally occurring? Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most things. Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point? And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make little or no difference. What to hell does the "world's economics" have to do with anything that I've stated in this thread??? What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late 90s? It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values mean. Not my problem. I read it just fine! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). Significance is the key word here. You see, if we are talking about the a hundred pounds of feathers, one or two more feathers is insignificant. If we are talking about global warming, a slight deviation from zero IS significant. Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing universal heath care? A Washington lobbyist. Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major truths being discovered. Horse****. Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's Cross hooker to shame. I guess you've never seen a Washington lobbyist in action. |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Hans wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late 90s? It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values mean. Any set of world temperature figures that does not show a significant dip in 1992/1993 is instantly suspect in my mind. I remember that the water mains froze in this city (Sudbury, ON). Everybody on city water had to leave their taps running all winter to stop the freeze up. It was a temporary effect from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. But it did cause temperatures to plunge world wide (plunge a fraction of a degree, that is, but that's all we're ever talking about except in silly movies). How come that data just vanished? How come so many global warming articles talk about a "steady increase in temperatures" since 1988? (well, they change the year around a bit) Granted, 1988 was hot. I remember a big fire in Yellowstone that year. It was also a solar max year in the sunspot cycle. As was 98/99. According to some we've been cooling since. I don't necessarily trust their figures either. Last year the sun was extraordinarily busy for what should have been a solar minimum. But here I am thinking global warming is caused by the sun. How silly am I? |
Global Warming? Clinton ended it.
Hans wrote: On 18 Apr 2006 07:00:57 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Hans wrote: On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Hans wrote: On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Bryan" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun by your clone, Bert. :-) Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe. What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get between you and Doug)? His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the same time? Mars Rovers? You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based, doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming, don't you? Some questions for you. Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra? Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling trends. What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally occurring? Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most things. Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point? And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make little or no difference. What to hell does the "world's economics" have to do with anything that I've stated in this thread??? Are you really that obtuse? The world's economy is what is driving man made C02 emissions. Until somebody is ready to state what percentage of the world's C02 is created by man you are flying in a blind liberal frenzy. What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late 90s? It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values mean. Not my problem. I read it just fine! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). Significance is the key word here. You see, if we are talking about the a hundred pounds of feathers, one or two more feathers is insignificant. If we are talking about global warming, a slight deviation from zero IS significant. I couldn't agree more. And the study referenced above shows a SLIGHT DECREASE from 1998 to 2005 But it's only ONE STUDY...........ONE....there are hundreds and hundreds that dispute that. Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing universal heath care? A Washington lobbyist. Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major truths being discovered. Horse****. Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's Cross hooker to shame. I guess you've never seen a Washington lobbyist in action. I have. Much more straight forward than several scientific bodies fighting for the same funding. You can, almost, predict the outcome before the research ever starts. It usually starts with "I believe our xxx institution is more attune to your requirements than yyy or zzz" Science comes hard for some people, apparently. While inane political blather seems perfectly plausible to same. Go figure. Read between the lines. No thank you, I prefer real data over what someone may possibly, maybe, sort of, perhaps is trying to say. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com