On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:11:18 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:34 am, HK wrote:
wrote:

But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would
not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking
about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it."
I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are
without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible
conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I
listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what
they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be
irresponsible buffoons.

The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth.

Are there any "douche bags" on the left?


Sure, but I don't spend any time listening to them, either. But there
are far more on the right, and they are far more successful, because
there is a large audience on the right for the sort of "put down crap"
delivered by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, et al. The righties
apparently need their daily fix of hate.

I think you should spend at least as much time listening to the left wing
douchbags as you do to the ones on the right (which, apparently, is a
significant amount). That would truly be the 'fair and balanced' thing to
do.

Then you'd see why Air America is going out of business.
--
John H

On Dec 20, 4:50Â*am, wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:26Â*am, Chuck Gould wrote:





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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop listening to hate radio then. I deal with rational folks whenever
I can. And those quotes supposedly made by one and agreed on by
another is not really credible, in fact I suspect the quotes are
"representitive" of what you heard, but not what they said...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You've been missing out on the opinions of Rush's fans in this debate?

Here's an update:

http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/globalwarming.htm

Some of my favorites are the two posts from people who claim extensive
scientific credentials, (but refuse to disclose their identity). Then
there's the guy who wrote: "He put is in charge of the garden, and I
don't think He would allow us to screw it up". I need to move to
wherever he lives, if he thinks we haven't screwed anything up since
the days of the Garden of Eden. :-)

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.

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"?

On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy 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...........

You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as
fact by inference.

Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-)

The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as
scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor.

The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so
many people deny that the climate is changing at all.

Three concepts:

1. Some say man is causing climate change
2. Some say man is not causing climate change
3. Some say there is no climate change occuring

None of those are mutually exclusive.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:33:29 GMT, "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?



Sounds very much like Bjorn Lomborg ( http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/ ).

When the Senate held their hearings on Global Warming, in which Al Gore was
the star, the Democrats walked out when Lomborg came on.

That one act said a lot about the Dems and Global Warming.
--
John H

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

Jim wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
HK wrote:
wrote:


But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would
not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking
about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it."

I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They
are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about
responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those
folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with
some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them
to be irresponsible buffoons.


What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What
characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?"


The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like
Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the
earth.

Limbaugh is funny and entertaining.

Coulter is funny and entertaining.

Malkin is funny and entertaining.

Hannity is a pompous ass.

O'Reilly is a pompous ass.

Thank god Imus is back.;-)

I can't stand Imus, I put him in the Hannity O'Reilly bucket.

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

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy 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...........

You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as
fact by inference.

Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-)

The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as
scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor.

The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so
many people deny that the climate is changing at all.

Three concepts:

1. Some say man is causing climate change
2. Some say man is not causing climate change
3. Some say there is no climate change occuring

None of those are mutually exclusive.

For Chuck. Offedred without comment.
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...al/Lmutual.htm