Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I love you too, man. Peace.

What an intelligent and well thought reply.....NOT.......

I take it that although you have no science to repute the article,
you
must goose step to the party and try to negate it, huh?

(refute??)


I prefer the two-step. Goose stepping just looks gay, especially at a
party.

I take it that you aren't quite bright enough to provide any
information to back up your statements. So, instead you try to act
humorous and homophobic.


I love you, man. Is that homophobic enough?

No, simply further shows your ignorance, that's all.



Yes, you are correct. You are a beacon of reason and rationality. Thank you
for showing me the light.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...
Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?
Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any
noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more
effective.
Who said that?
You did. I said that it would make no difference whether the ice was in
an ice chest or in a cardboard box.
*I* said it makes a difference while the ice/water is below ambient and
makes no difference at ambient.
*You* said it makes no difference regardless of ice/water temp.

You said I was wrong.
You are.

LOL!
Holy ****! Are you really that bad at reading comprehension???
Okay, here's an easy one. Show me one bit of proof that the machine
would be more effective with the ice in a chest as opposed to a
cardboard box.

Bassy,
Have you ever noticed that everyone you debate has reading comprehension
skills? That everyone you debate are as ignorant as can be? I don't
believe anyone in rec.boats has ever been able to follow one of your
arguments, and I really can't remember anyone saying, "You know Bassy, I
think you are correct in this matter". I know there are many people who
agree with you on certain issues, but no one ever supported you in any
of your diatribes. Why is that?

Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any
length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond
belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on,
then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name
calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that
the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest
or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would
melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name
calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary.


I don't have a club, but if you were honest with yourself, you would
realize that NO ONE support you or your diatribes. People who agree
with everything you believe in, take off running when they see you start
another one of your silly threads. Harry who is a liberal as can be
even has told you that your diatribes were boring and stupid.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...


As far as the above goes, I've stated that
the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest
or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would
melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name
calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary.


I can prove it to you (yet again) if you agree to answer just a few simple
yes or no questions.

Are you game?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:

Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any
length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond
belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on,
then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name
calling and insults begins.

um, hmm

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:01:42 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

basskisser wrote:
Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...
Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?
Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any
noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more
effective.
Who said that?
You did. I said that it would make no difference whether the ice was in
an ice chest or in a cardboard box.

*I* said it makes a difference while the ice/water is below ambient and
makes no difference at ambient.
*You* said it makes no difference regardless of ice/water temp.

You said I was wrong.
You are.

LOL!

Holy ****! Are you really that bad at reading comprehension???
Okay, here's an easy one. Show me one bit of proof that the machine
would be more effective with the ice in a chest as opposed to a
cardboard box.

Bassy,
Have you ever noticed that everyone you debate has reading comprehension
skills? That everyone you debate are as ignorant as can be? I don't
believe anyone in rec.boats has ever been able to follow one of your
arguments, and I really can't remember anyone saying, "You know Bassy, I
think you are correct in this matter". I know there are many people who
agree with you on certain issues, but no one ever supported you in any
of your diatribes. Why is that?



Bassy posted a troll and got at least nine different people arguing with
him in multiple posts. He must be orgasmic by now. I'd say he was correct
in thinking he could get an argument going!
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

On 13 Dec 2006 10:27:31 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Varis wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

In the final analysis; nobody with a motorized pleasure boat has any
license, at all, to seriously complain about the global consumption of
fossil fuel. (Sort of like Al Gore travelling around in a big SUV). A
true believer would need to sink his or her boat, junk out his or her
car (not just sell it, and transfer the problem to another person), and
take up walking, rowing, and bicycling instead.

Maybe he is demotivated by the thought that the million guys next to
him will not let go of their SUVs anyway? And... how do you know how
much gas _his_ boat consumes? :-)

Risto

All very probably true. However, nobody should call upon others to make
sacrifices that they are personally unwilling to endure. Matters not
whether it's the fundie preacher having gay sex with his meth pusher on
Saturdays and then screaming that all gays are going to hell from his
pulpit on Sunday, Al Gore traveling around in a 12 MPG SUV while
railing against mankind's acceleration of global warming, or some guy
who owns a boat suggesting that others should not do the same because
it is a frivolous use of fossil fuel.

Anything burning less fuel than my boat (about 2 gph) is probably under
sail; but darned if I would assume some moral soap box to insist that
others conserve fuel that I am personally unwilling to conserve. Every
drop of fuel burned in a pleasure boat, every drop of fuel burned in a
motor vehicle for a pleasure trip, and nearly every drop of fuel burned
in any private passenger vehicle larger or more comfortable than a
Mini-Cooper is a discretionary waste.
Show me the guy who uses nothing but solar or wind energy, walks, bikes
or rows everywhere he goes, eats no commercially grown, processed, or
transported food, buys nothing made of plastic or imported from a
country with few meaningful environmental laws (China), and that will
be the guy who has earned the right to tell the rest of us we need to
change our living standards to forestall global warming.

There's a chance that we're no more than a generation or two from the
next Dark Age.
When radiation poisoning, famine, warfare, and disease reduce the
population to a small fraction of what it is today, the survivors will
get a chance to evaluate whether suspending the use of fossil fuels,
allowing the forests to once again cover the continents, etc will have
any effect on global warming. Most of us will be long gone, and perhaps
primarily by natural causes- but our grandkids or great grandkids will
need to be lucky as well as strong and resourceful to survive in a
future that it is *already too late* to salvage. Gawd that's
depressing- good reason to own a boat. :-)

(But if you own a boat, you have no creds in the "global warming"
discussion)

Chuck, do you have the URL for that 'doomsday' article which basically said
what you just did? Someone posted it here a few months back, and I've lost
it. Thanks.
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?

Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

The question is how much aggravation. If it is 0.0001% of the total of
green house gases it is not a problem, however, if it is 10% then it is
a problem. Which is it?

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?

Because we are the most advanced society on the planet.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
Dan wrote:

Tim wrote:

basskisser wrote:


Tim wrote:


basskisser wrote:


And in case you didn't read, or comprhend,

um, hmm

Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle.


when did "um, hmm become a "girlie giggle"?


Relax. Simple boys are easily amused.


And HERE'S DAN......every single post I make, he stalks!

Infatuation.......
Infatuation......
It's driving Dan crazy.....
It's making Dan CRAAAZZZYYY.......


So know you are Tim, Kevin?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Sam wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
egroups.com...

Sam wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
glegroups.com...


Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?

Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any
noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"



I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more
effective.

Who said that?

You did. I said that it would make no difference whether the ice was in
an ice chest or in a cardboard box.

*I* said it makes a difference while the ice/water is below ambient and
makes no difference at ambient.
*You* said it makes no difference regardless of ice/water temp.


You said I was wrong.

You are.

LOL!

Holy ****! Are you really that bad at reading comprehension???
Okay, here's an easy one. Show me one bit of proof that the machine
would be more effective with the ice in a chest as opposed to a
cardboard box.


Bassy,
Have you ever noticed that everyone you debate has reading comprehension
skills? That everyone you debate are as ignorant as can be? I don't
believe anyone in rec.boats has ever been able to follow one of your
arguments, and I really can't remember anyone saying, "You know Bassy, I
think you are correct in this matter". I know there are many people who
agree with you on certain issues, but no one ever supported you in any
of your diatribes. Why is that?


Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any
length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond
belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on,
then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name
calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that
the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest
or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would
melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name
calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary.


Conspiracy? Nice try!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Sam wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sam wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?

Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any
noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal
amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more
effective.

Who said that?

You did. I said that it would make no difference whether the ice
was in
an ice chest or in a cardboard box.

*I* said it makes a difference while the ice/water is below ambient
and
makes no difference at ambient.
*You* said it makes no difference regardless of ice/water temp.

You said I was wrong.

You are.

LOL!

Holy ****! Are you really that bad at reading comprehension???
Okay, here's an easy one. Show me one bit of proof that the machine
would be more effective with the ice in a chest as opposed to a
cardboard box.

Bassy,
Have you ever noticed that everyone you debate has reading comprehension
skills? That everyone you debate are as ignorant as can be? I don't
believe anyone in rec.boats has ever been able to follow one of your
arguments, and I really can't remember anyone saying, "You know Bassy, I
think you are correct in this matter". I know there are many people who
agree with you on certain issues, but no one ever supported you in any
of your diatribes. Why is that?


Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any
length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond
belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on,
then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name
calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that
the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest
or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would
melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name
calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary.


I don't have a club, but if you were honest with yourself, you would
realize that NO ONE support you or your diatribes. People who agree
with everything you believe in, take off running when they see you start
another one of your silly threads. Harry who is a liberal as can be
even has told you that your diatribes were boring and stupid.

Wrong. There's the Don and Harry show. It's a 3-way circle jerk that
the boy leans on whenever it benefits him and is moronic BS.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com