Settled science? HA!!
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:58:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:48:54 -0800, jps wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that either. I'd like to see if
America is ready to have (what it perceives as) a black man in the
white house.

Interesting comment.

Personally, I'm not excited by anybody on either side.

Should you consider who might do the least harm? We should have
considered that 3 years ago, let alone 7.

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Dec 20, 10:22*pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 20, 10:57 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:46:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:33 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end
all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly ****
on
right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming
from
the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written!
Pretty selective, don't you think?

Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty
A third of the planet doesn't have electricity.
A billion people have no clean water.
A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night.

Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists
will
make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you
care
more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of
paying
attention to what's going on now?

Your childish and low-life name calling shows that you aren't bright
enough to understand an intelligent response, or you're too narrow
minded.

Here, Loogy, same question for you but restated:

"Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists
will
*make life even worse for all these people, why do you care
*more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying
*attention to what's going on now?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I, and a lot of others ARE concerned about what's happening now. Does
that somehow negate the effort to give our progeny an environment to
live in at least as good as ours?

If idiots like you have your way, billions (with a B) *of people will
starve, die of curable disease, and live without any hope of progress just
so your "progeny" can live with 10 to 20 parts per million less CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Is that OK with you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That has to be the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. On so many
levels.

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:27:21 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:58:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:48:54 -0800, jps wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that either. I'd like to see if
America is ready to have (what it perceives as) a black man in the
white house.

Interesting comment.

Personally, I'm not excited by anybody on either side.

Should you consider who might do the least harm?

That's an intersting point - who would do the least harm? And how do
you define "least harm"?

Sadly, I see one "leader" in the bunch that I would trust to make the
right choices, and the hard choices, necessary to run the nation. The
rest I wouldn't trust to make up a grocery list never mind being a
leader of the free world.

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:43:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snipped

Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty
A third of the planet doesn't have electricity.
A billion people have no clean water.
A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night.

Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists
will
make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you
care
more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of
paying
attention to what's going on now?

Your childish and low-life name calling shows that you aren't bright
enough to understand an intelligent response, or you're too narrow
minded.

Here, Loogy, same question for you but restated:

"Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists
will
*make life even worse for all these people, why do you care
*more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying
*attention to what's going on now?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I, and a lot of others ARE concerned about what's happening now. Does
that somehow negate the effort to give our progeny an environment to
live in at least as good as ours?

If idiots like you have your way, billions (with a B) *of people will
starve, die of curable disease, and live without any hope of progress just
so your "progeny" can live with 10 to 20 parts per million less CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Is that OK with you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That has to be the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. On so many
levels.

Read it: http://tinyurl.com/287nz3
--
John H

Settled science? HA!!
 

jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:58:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:48:54 -0800, jps wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that either. I'd like to see if
America is ready to have (what it perceives as) a black man in the
white house.
Interesting comment.

Personally, I'm not excited by anybody on either side.

Should you consider who might do the least harm? We should have
considered that 3 years ago, let alone 7.

We did consider it and we chose correctly.

Settled science? HA!!
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:27:21 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:58:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:48:54 -0800, jps wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that either. I'd like to see if
America is ready to have (what it perceives as) a black man in the
white house.

Interesting comment.

Personally, I'm not excited by anybody on either side.

Should you consider who might do the least harm?

That's an intersting point - who would do the least harm? And how do
you define "least harm"?

Sadly, I see one "leader" in the bunch that I would trust to make the
right choices, and the hard choices, necessary to run the nation. The
rest I wouldn't trust to make up a grocery list never mind being a
leader of the free world.

That describes Mitt Romney to a T

Settled science? HA!!
 

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:43:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snipped

If idiots like you have your way, billions (with a B) of people will
starve, die of curable disease, and live without any hope of progress just
so your "progeny" can live with 10 to 20 parts per million less CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Is that OK with you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
That has to be the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. On so many
levels.

Read it: http://tinyurl.com/287nz3

The only reason the UN is involved in Climate Change is that they see it
as a method to implement a taxing scheme upon the world. It is a money
grab and nothing more.

Measuring climate change using years, decades, centuries and millenniums
is a bit pretentious.

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Dec 21, 8:45*am, BAR wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:43:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snipped

If idiots like you have your way, billions (with a B) *of people will
starve, die of curable disease, and live without any hope of progress just
so your "progeny" can live with 10 to 20 parts per million less CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Is that OK with you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
That has to be the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. On so many
levels.

Read it:http://tinyurl.com/287nz3

The only reason the UN is involved in Climate Change is that they see it
as a method to implement a taxing scheme upon the world. It is a money
grab and nothing more.

Measuring climate change using years, decades, centuries and millenniums
is a bit pretentious.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Global Taxing..;)

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:24:11 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:58:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:48:54 -0800, jps wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that either. I'd like to see if
America is ready to have (what it perceives as) a black man in the
white house.
Interesting comment.

Personally, I'm not excited by anybody on either side.

Should you consider who might do the least harm? We should have
considered that 3 years ago, let alone 7.

We did consider it and we chose correctly.

Now you know what it feels like to be in a tiny minority. Sort of
like the Manson family.

Settled science? HA!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 8:45 am, BAR wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:43:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snipped

If idiots like you have your way, billions (with a B) of people will
starve, die of curable disease, and live without any hope of progress
just
so your "progeny" can live with 10 to 20 parts per million less CO2 in
the
atmosphere.

Is that OK with you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
That has to be the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. On so many
levels.

Read it:http://tinyurl.com/287nz3

The only reason the UN is involved in Climate Change is that they see it
as a method to implement a taxing scheme upon the world. It is a money
grab and nothing more.

Measuring climate change using years, decades, centuries and millenniums
is a bit pretentious.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Global Taxing..;)

Has nada to do with Global Taxing. Taxing is just control, and they want
control of the world.