On Dec 19, 11:04Â*pm, 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...........

Funny, I don't see a lot of folks in that camp, although the Global
Taxing advocates keep citing them. I guess sooner or later I will find
one. My best guess though is it is more of a talking point to
villanize the sceptics.. I guess however if you can keep the arguement
there, where there is really no arguement (weather the earth is
cycling hotter again or not) you don't have to address the very
credible science that says we are not causing it, it's just another
cycle...

On Dec 19, 11:21 pm, Larry wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote :

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Damn! They got the popup spam **** covering up the text, now!

Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops
crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary
of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.

How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use!

I would imagine he was refering to the pirated intellectual property
being sold over there on the streets for the worlds consumption...

Canada, there's a real brain trust.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of
Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns
of temperature changes ('fingerprints') over the last thirty years are
not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be
explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

Dont see any Canadian sources in that paragraph...............
I think the poster of that top statement should stick his index finger
up his ass...pull it out and sniff it...THEN he'll see how full of
**** he , and that statement are. Maybe he's a convicted Felon, and is
jealous he cant come over here to boat,,or fish.....or get good
Beer......o yeah...they DO sell the "seconds" over there.

Check out some solar pictures and see the flares that have been going
off on the Sun lately.

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).

This global warming stuff has given birth to what I call "The Epic
Battle of Cites" I quit reading them long ago, but then I'm not
nearly the scientist as many here. Political influences are easily
seen, misread, and denied.
Perhaps it will all lead to cleaner air, a business boom, and
technological innovation. That's what I see coming of it.
Until the condos that are now 100 yards from the oceanfront become
inundated by the sea, nobody will do too much about it.
That's when my plan to coat the polar regions with finely ground
reflective material dropped from C-130's comes into play.
Of course somebody else will get credit for it, but that's ok.

--Vic

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:34:12 -0500, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

Canada, there's a real brain trust.

Took time to read that did you?

Obviously not.

Fortunately the majority of the world now recognizes that what people do
is
having an impact on the global environment. So you can disbelieve all you
want and it won't matter ****. Let me guess, you stock piled for y2k too,
right? yuyuk.

Actually no. I made money off of clowns who did.

And I'm making money hand over fist off those who are throwing the
rest of you sheeple to the wolves making you believe their bull****.

I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
Seems as if only Al was making money. The alternative enegy world is just
not profitable yet to make money hand over foot.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:26:12 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:14:38 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:48:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:34:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:22:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
Another qualified voice of reason.
Refreshing.

Now, if we can stop the madness before we all go broke trying to fix a
nonexistent problem.

Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global
warming is a Republican. That tells me what I need to know about the
"opposition."
So if I were to tell you that a quick search of the FEC database pulls
up two of those contributors and they both are donors to the DNC,
would that change your opinion on their veracity?
Nope.
My statement stands..."almost everyone..."
Ah - I see.

You are truly amazing.
Because I can construct simple sentences to say what I mean with a bit
of precision?

"Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global
warming is a Republican." What is there about that sentence you find
confusing?

It's not - I understood it perfectly.

Its' just an example of your ability to blame one group while at the
same time absolving your chosen group of any responsibility even
though they both believe the same thing.

It is truly amazing.

I'm not "blaming" anyone or absolving anyone else. I am merely pointing
out a truth, that the "man is not a contributor to Global Warming
syndrome" is a mostly Republican ailment.

Game. Set. Match.

Contestants don't normally call game, set, match -- it suggests a lack
of sportmanship.

Game. Set. Match.

You got that right!

I try to stay away from Harry's rantings about the "Republicans," as it
makes us moderate Dems look bad. g

--Mike

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:14:38 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:48:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:34:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:22:00 -0500, HK
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
Another qualified voice of reason.
Refreshing.

Now, if we can stop the madness before we all go broke trying to
fix a
nonexistent problem.

Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on
global
warming is a Republican. That tells me what I need to know about
the
"opposition."
So if I were to tell you that a quick search of the FEC database
pulls
up two of those contributors and they both are donors to the DNC,
would that change your opinion on their veracity?
Nope.
My statement stands..."almost everyone..."
Ah - I see.

You are truly amazing.
Because I can construct simple sentences to say what I mean with a bit
of precision?

"Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global
warming is a Republican." What is there about that sentence you find
confusing?

It's not - I understood it perfectly.

Its' just an example of your ability to blame one group while at the
same time absolving your chosen group of any responsibility even
though they both believe the same thing.

It is truly amazing.

I'm not "blaming" anyone or absolving anyone else. I am merely pointing
out a truth, that the "man is not a contributor to Global Warming
syndrome" is a mostly Republican ailment.

Game. Set. Match.

On Dec 19, 8:26Â*pm, wrote:
On Dec 19, 11:04Â*pm, 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...........

Funny, I don't see a lot of folks in that camp, although the Global
Taxing advocates keep citing them. I guess sooner or later I will find
one. My best guess though is it is more of a talking point to
villanize the sceptics.. I guess however if you can keep the arguement
there, where there is really no arguement (weather the earth is
cycling hotter again or not) you don't have to address the very
credible science that says we are not causing it, it's just another
cycle...

I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't
even warming at all" category. I listen to right-wing talk shows on a
regular basis, (20-30 minutes, a couple of times per week). I have
heard some of the talk show hosts make the following statements, and
every time they do their screeners pass through the predictable 2-3
"confirming" callers that agree with whatever outrageous statement the
host made.

Two of my favorites heard within the last few months:

1. The liberals deliberately put the temperature probes used to
measure global heat trends in the hottest places they could find. Over
asphalt parking lots, on the sunny sides of brick buildings, etc.

2. There are a handful of glaciers actually *increasing* in size, and
if the whole earth was warming like the tax and spend liberals want us
to believe, then no glaciers would be able to grow.


(Sometimes there's a carefully selected individual scientist to add
some crediblity to the schtick).


Not heard on the radio, but heard commonly enough elsewhe "Global
warming is bullship".

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:34:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:22:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
Another qualified voice of reason.
Refreshing.

Now, if we can stop the madness before we all go broke trying to fix a
nonexistent problem.

Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global
warming is a Republican. That tells me what I need to know about the
"opposition."

So if I were to tell you that a quick search of the FEC database pulls
up two of those contributors and they both are donors to the DNC,
would that change your opinion on their veracity?

Nope.
My statement stands..."almost everyone..."

Ah - I see.

You are truly amazing.

It's always a good idea to leave the back door open ... just in case.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:48:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:34:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:22:00 -0500, HK
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
Another qualified voice of reason.
Refreshing.

Now, if we can stop the madness before we all go broke trying to
fix a nonexistent problem.

Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global
warming is a Republican. That tells me what I need to know about the
"opposition."
So if I were to tell you that a quick search of the FEC database
pulls
up two of those contributors and they both are donors to the DNC,
would that change your opinion on their veracity?
Nope.
My statement stands..."almost everyone..."
Ah - I see.

You are truly amazing.
Because I can construct simple sentences to say what I mean with a bit
of precision?

"Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global
warming is a Republican." What is there about that sentence you find
confusing?

It's not - I understood it perfectly.

Its' just an example of your ability to blame one group while at the
same time absolving your chosen group of any responsibility even
though they both believe the same thing.

It is truly amazing.


I'm not "blaming" anyone or absolving anyone else. I am merely pointing
out a truth, that the "man is not a contributor to Global Warming
syndrome" is a mostly Republican ailment.

I read and interpret the studies as a scientific debate. Haven't a clue as
to the various author's political leanings .... well except AGore, but he's
not a scientist.

Eisboch