Settled science? HA!!
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

The rush to ethanol is creating a huge disruption in the food supply
chain. This morning I was down at the local farm taking some
picutures and conversed with the owner. He showed me his feed bill
for his milk cows and beef cattle - he's paying twice what he paid
last year and he can't hedge because his suppliers fully expect it to
double again before spring. He's seriously thinking of cutting back
on his herd because even though beef prices are rising, he can't
afford the same size herd because he can't feed them economically.

Maybe he should feed them grain instead.

Ethanol hasn't anything to do with global warming. The business of
farm subsidies is what pushes corn and ethanol. It's a boondogle,
creating ethanol is a net loss when considering what it takes to
produce a gallon of fuel.

Speaking of which, growing cows is stupid too. Costs to produce a
pound of beef are enormous in comparison to most other foods, not to
mention that it's sucking up the US aquifer, poisoning crops and
people through uncontrolled runoff, etc.

Can't blame it all on Gore, but I'm sure you'd like to.

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:13:02 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

The rush to ethanol is creating a huge disruption in the food supply
chain. This morning I was down at the local farm taking some
picutures and conversed with the owner. He showed me his feed bill
for his milk cows and beef cattle - he's paying twice what he paid
last year and he can't hedge because his suppliers fully expect it to
double again before spring. He's seriously thinking of cutting back
on his herd because even though beef prices are rising, he can't
afford the same size herd because he can't feed them economically.

Maybe he should feed them grain instead.

Ethanol hasn't anything to do with global warming. The business of
farm subsidies is what pushes corn and ethanol. It's a boondogle,
creating ethanol is a net loss when considering what it takes to
produce a gallon of fuel.

Speaking of which, growing cows is stupid too. Costs to produce a
pound of beef are enormous in comparison to most other foods, not to
mention that it's sucking up the US aquifer, poisoning crops and
people through uncontrolled runoff, etc.

Can't blame it all on Gore, but I'm sure you'd like to.

Oh go soak your head in the Northwest Passage. :)

PS: I blame Gore for everything.

And you. :)

Settled science? HA!!
 

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.


Sally, you sound *exactly* like Kevin/Walter/Basskisser. Coincidence?
Not a chance.

Settled science? HA!!
 

wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:58 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:47:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:13 am, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the
human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out
a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are).
It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could
ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist
that the climate is *not* changing at all...........
It's amazing the number of people who preach that man is solely responsible
for global warming and that many billions of dollars in the right pockets
will stop it.
*That's* what's amazing!
--
John H
John, just *who* preaches that man is "solely responsible for global
warming"?
Whoooosh!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whoosh, my ass. Did you make that statement or not? Do you believe the
statement that YOU wrote, or aren't you a man of conviction?

"are you a man"? That sound very familiar, Sally. But that wouldn't
have been you posting it here, right?

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:18:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:13:02 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

The rush to ethanol is creating a huge disruption in the food supply
chain. This morning I was down at the local farm taking some
picutures and conversed with the owner. He showed me his feed bill
for his milk cows and beef cattle - he's paying twice what he paid
last year and he can't hedge because his suppliers fully expect it to
double again before spring. He's seriously thinking of cutting back
on his herd because even though beef prices are rising, he can't
afford the same size herd because he can't feed them economically.

Maybe he should feed them grain instead.

Ethanol hasn't anything to do with global warming. The business of
farm subsidies is what pushes corn and ethanol. It's a boondogle,
creating ethanol is a net loss when considering what it takes to
produce a gallon of fuel.

Speaking of which, growing cows is stupid too. Costs to produce a
pound of beef are enormous in comparison to most other foods, not to
mention that it's sucking up the US aquifer, poisoning crops and
people through uncontrolled runoff, etc.

Can't blame it all on Gore, but I'm sure you'd like to.

Oh go soak your head in the Northwest Passage. :)

PS: I blame Gore for everything.

And you. :)

I knew that. That's a lot of methane you're storing.

Better keep it away from open flame or your head could do what you're
hoping happens to Hillary's. ;^)

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.

Wonder if he'd have the balls to do something about campaign finance
reform and getting the lobbyists the hell out of washington (during
the time he's repairing our sullied world image and setting us on a
better course).

Settled science? HA!!
 

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.

Settled science? HA!!
 

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?

Settled science? HA!!
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

It's a boondogle, creating ethanol is a net loss when considering what it
takes to produce a gallon of fuel.

That's the most intelligent statement you've ever said in this group.

Settled science? HA!!
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:13:02 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

The rush to ethanol is creating a huge disruption in the food supply
chain. This morning I was down at the local farm taking some
picutures and conversed with the owner. He showed me his feed bill
for his milk cows and beef cattle - he's paying twice what he paid
last year and he can't hedge because his suppliers fully expect it to
double again before spring. He's seriously thinking of cutting back
on his herd because even though beef prices are rising, he can't
afford the same size herd because he can't feed them economically.

Maybe he should feed them grain instead.

Ethanol hasn't anything to do with global warming. The business of
farm subsidies is what pushes corn and ethanol. It's a boondogle,
creating ethanol is a net loss when considering what it takes to
produce a gallon of fuel.

Speaking of which, growing cows is stupid too. Costs to produce a
pound of beef are enormous in comparison to most other foods, not to
mention that it's sucking up the US aquifer, poisoning crops and
people through uncontrolled runoff, etc.

Can't blame it all on Gore, but I'm sure you'd like to.

Oh go soak your head in the Northwest Passage. :)

PS: I blame Gore for everything.

And you. :)

Not Chuck. Is all those Microsoft weenies.

Settled science? HA!!
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:26:12 GMT, "BillP"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

It's a boondogle, creating ethanol is a net loss when considering what it
takes to produce a gallon of fuel.

That's the most intelligent statement you've ever said in this group.

Have you suffered a blow to the head in the past few days? Perhaps
your reading comprehension has made an unexplained leap?

AFAIC, this statement is within the statistical mean average of the
bulk of my statements, forgiving a few explitives here and there.

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.