PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming make up your mind!



eg8r
04-18-2007, 10:53 AM
Do you remember a year or so ago when the global warming alarmists were forcasting record numbers of hurricanes? Well it never happened and the alarmists went back to their holes. Well they are out in full force again and guess what they are saying now...
Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-17T223135Z_01_N17419452_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEATHER-HURRICANES-SHEAR.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)
[ QUOTE ]
Global warming could increase a climate phenomenon known as wind shear that inhibits Atlantic hurricanes, a potentially positive result of climate change, according to new research released on Tuesday.

The study, to be published on Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters, found that climate model simulations show a "robust increase" in wind shear in the tropical Atlantic during the 21st century from global warming.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, so now these looney alarmists are telling us that thanks to global warming we will not have the hurricanes. Make up your minds. If there was ever a reason not to believe all you global warming alarmists it is simply because you cannot keep to the same story.

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-18-2007, 01:21 PM
you really should stop posting on anything to do with the theory of global warming. Your closed mind attitude in regards to this....without having any data to back up your supposition....makes one wonder about all the rest of your "theories" that you rave on about here.
I hope you don't work for a defense contractor...it would be another reason why we are losing the war
maybe though, you are just paid by the right to just post s**t on internet message boards?

eg8r
04-18-2007, 01:28 PM
And a theory it is.

I am not closed minded, it is hard enough trying to pin point the alarmists down to anything they say, so when they begin moving the target it makes it even tougher. This is very much like your favorite leftist party. They never nail down on any point they just keep swaying along depending on which way the wind blows.

I suggest you take your own advice and think before you respond to any of my posts, it is obvious you have a close-minded attitude regarding them.

[ QUOTE ]
without having any data to back up your supposition <hr /></blockquote> What data would you like me to show, an example of the alarmists forcasting tons of hurricanes based on global warming. You are a nutcase. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you don't work for a defense contractor <hr /></blockquote> Apparently you have a pretty sad memory or you are making one poor attempt at humor (reference this quote and the one above it).

Again, before you offer any help to others about posting and their attitude why don't you just take a look in the mirror you might be surprised. I doubt it though, the sad left does not take any personal responsibilty for their own actions, it is always blamed on someone else.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 02:46 PM
As I recall most of the predictions were for more violent Hurricanes, which we have definately seen in recent years.

But alas, Ed is right, and the vast majority of Scientists, are all wrong. That's why the bush administration is paying Scientists $10,000.00 to write stories which pooh poo Global Warming, and censoring data from their scientific studies, which WE pay for.

I would love to see the total number of resignations because of this administrations Nazi style operations, and also the number of people who were fired for refusing to play along with bush's lies.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 03:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But alas, Ed is right, and the vast majority of Scientists, are all wrong. <hr /></blockquote> What a bonehead response. I am not saying anything, just asking the alarmists to pick something and stick with it. Don't sway with the wind.

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-18-2007, 03:59 PM
Gayle, I had read that story about paying to plant stories....It goes right along with the manufactured "evidence" they used to begin this war....and the attempt to discredit Joe Wilson.
They make the facts fit their goals.
As to the resignations, and firings....I'd bet it would be a record for any admin.

wolfdancer
04-18-2007, 04:11 PM
just by using the word "alarmists" to describe the concerned scientists...indicates you believe their fears to have no merits...thus, "they are wrong, and you are right....."
Since no one fully understands the impacts of global warming...it is still a debatable topic....you should expect different, and changing predictions about it's future effects.
Bush treats global warming like his treatment of stem cell research.... doesn't know anything about it but he's against it.......a f*****G history major in college....telling scientists they are wrong...

cushioncrawler
04-18-2007, 04:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Do you remember a year or so ago when the global warming alarmists were forcasting record numbers of hurricanes? Well it never happened and the alarmists went back to their holes. Well they are out in full force again and guess what they are saying now..... Global warming could increase a climate phenomenon known as wind shear that inhibits Atlantic hurricanes, a potentially positive result of climate change, according to new research released on Tuesday. The study, to be published on Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters, found that climate model simulations show a "robust increase" in wind shear in the tropical Atlantic during the 21st century from global warming.... LOL, so now these looney alarmists are telling us that thanks to global warming we will not have the hurricanes. Make up your minds. If there was ever a reason not to believe all you global warming alarmists it is simply because you cannot keep to the same story...<hr /></blockquote>eg8r -- We need scientists who raize alarms, and we need scientists who contradict alarmists. I fail to see any sense in your posting. And, your attitude is totally foolish, unless u do in fact believe 100% that global warming is either not happening or at least that it iznt due to our bad praktis, in which case you are totally foolish. madMac.

Sid_Vicious
04-18-2007, 05:16 PM
Uhhh, Ed will find out sooner than most of us about the hurricane increase and global warming. He's right in the hurricane alley down there in Florida, so not wishing ill will, he's bound to "feel" the reality check ahead of most people, in short time in my predictions. Sure Florida is no stranger to hurricanes, yet with global warming, Florida will be an example time and time again...sid

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 06:14 PM
One would think now that we see insurance companies refusing to write policies, and Scientific agreement among such a vast majority, reasonable people would take heed, and endeavor to learn about the problem, and support studies by professional experts in the field. Instead, this administration, in support of the oil cartel, has tried to censor, delete information, and pressure Scientists in other ways, including paying them off to lie for them.

Kind of hard to grasp any Americans, supporting such policies, unless they're nuts.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 07:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
just by using the word "alarmists" to describe the concerned scientists <hr /></blockquote> The concerned scientists are the ones doing their job. The alarmists are the ones that are running around broadcasting their own form of "facts" and alarming everyone, then a year later running around telling us they were wrong with their "facts" last time, but this time the "facts" tell us something different.

All you want to do is argue and you don't really care about the subject. You just want to be grumpy and argue and I just don't have time for it anymore.

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 07:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Uhhh, Ed will find out sooner than most of us about the hurricane increase and global warming. <hr /></blockquote> That is the whole point. We listened to the alarmists last year about the increase in hurricanes and it never happened. This year they are telling us there will be less for the very same reason we were supposed to have more the last time.

You are correct that we will find out first though. Both my wonderful children were born in the middle of hurricanes, they cannot be too bad right. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 07:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Kind of hard to grasp any Americans, supporting such policies, unless they're nuts.
<hr /></blockquote> The only nuts here are the ones that buy into all your doom and gloom.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 07:36 PM
I have stated that I have every confidence that we will work this problem out, even though the Bush policies have set us back atleast ten years, and he wiped out years of progress by suspending cafe' standards, and factory emmision regulations, even our drinking water has more arsenic since Bush arrived. He's pro poison, poisoning he own people, gee, where have I heard that before... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
04-19-2007, 07:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He's pro poison, poisoning he own people, gee, where have I heard that before... <hr /></blockquote> You are so full of crap. Sometimes you make a tiny bit of sense and then other times you prove you know nothing.

eg8r

ras314
04-19-2007, 02:51 PM
I am sort of curious, are we supposed to run out of petrolem resources before the global warming wipes out all the costal cites (hurricanes, sea level rising, or whatever)? Or is it too late and the sky is already falling? Not much doubt that petrolem is going to eventually get scarcer but the trendy hybrid car fad is a farce, in my opinion of course. Be great to see Gayle put her considerable research abilitys to work on these issues.

Wish I could believe the Dems, liberals and such had the answer...

Of course I now live inland at a much higher altitude than Fla and water is a bit scarce. And winter seems to be lasting a long time this year.

MikeM
04-19-2007, 08:27 PM
Ed,

DO you believe there is no human caused global warming?

MM

Gayle in MD
04-20-2007, 05:03 AM
Well, atleast the Dems/liberals, are not trying to cover up the Science. The first step is to acknowledge the problem. I don't think any reasonable person could think that fossil fuels have no affect on our global conditions. With the global population exploding, and the ice caps melting at an alarming rate, just plain ol' common sense, should have reasonable people alarmed, IMO. Or, one can always go out and suck up some carbon dioxide from the tail pipe, for a more dramatic demonstration of the effects of fosill fuels, on human beings. A quick study into how Bush legislated for the destruction of forests, our greatest source of oxygen, and what is happening to the rain forest, all seem to suggest that we need to study, and pay attention to scientific findings, rather than support a president who is paying people off to lie to us, with the help of his blank check party of co-conspirators.

I'm not a Scientist, and while I am completely committed to studying our current events due to great concerns over what George Bush has done to our country, and the world, during his tenure, and also, because of what un-necessary carnage is being asked of such a few in our reserves, and armed forces, over and over again, in this illogical War On Terror, I am far from bright enough to produce any positive results for humanity by making any scientific studies of my own. I will leave that to the brilliant scientists, and try to work against the politicians who are blocking their findings, but instead, through a pro-active life in the field of political efforts through my present political party, and through my community, endeavor to contribute in other ways. Thanks for the sarcasm though.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-20-2007, 06:03 AM
I believe global warming is natural and that is what we are currently experiencing.

What does your question have to do with my post?

eg8r

ras314
04-20-2007, 07:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Thanks for the sarcasm though.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Wasn't intended as sarcasm. I see considerable talk that the "science" claimed by Mr. Gore is highly selective. About all I've tried to research is how the mean global temp is measured and where the data for the scare stories comes from. So far it looks like there are NO reliable measurements of global average temperatures over any length of time. Lots of secondary indications such as melting ice caps, changing major ocean currents, increased co2 levels for the last few 100 years, ect. Same things that happened before people started burning oil.

Makes me wonder how much of this is partisan politicts and how much is science. The two don't usually mix very well.

Roy

Gayle in MD
04-20-2007, 07:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: ras314
Subject: Re: Global Warming make up your mind!


Quote Gayle in MD:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the sarcasm though.

Gayle in Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wasn't intended as sarcasm
<hr /></blockquote>

Then I apologize. Let me say that I wasn't one who jumped on this global warming band wagon at the beginning, however I have spent some time on it, and feel now, that it is a real and present danger, for many reasons which have been considered by Scientists, and found to be alarming.

I tend to defer to the experts, when I know that my own abilities to decipher the science is limited, and it is evident that most of them are in agreement on the dangers we face, and the likely causes. In my case, most of what I have read on this issue, makes perfect sense, to me atleast.

gayle in Md.

moblsv
04-20-2007, 08:24 AM
I would like to point out that this is not just a "band wagon" or new subject. I have been an environmentalist and Global Warming/Climate Change evangelist ever since studying the subject, as a Physics major, 20 years ago. Like every other subject these idiots (eg8r et.al) pontificate about, they are talking out of their @sses, and don't have a clue.

These idiots simply suck up everything the AEI and Heritage Foundation throw out like a bunch of 6 year olds in Sunday School.

Anthropologic Climate Change is a fact. PERIOD!!!!

Gayle in MD
04-20-2007, 08:29 AM
Thank you friend,
It's nice to know that my sparce knowledge of the subject, and relying purely on my common sense, to decipher it, is in line with someone so well informed on the subject. You, and the rest of the vast majority of Scientific evidence, /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif give me some hope for my so called bone headed condition! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle

moblsv
04-20-2007, 08:38 AM
Abuses of Science is high on my list of complaints against Bush and is yet another deep Bush Rabbit hole. This one goes as deep as the Iraq War mess, of which you are a valuable source of information.

You are far from Bone-Headed. You give me hope that this country can recover from the Bush Destruction yet. More people are starting to "get it" all the time, partially due to the efforts of educated people such as yourself.

Only a little over 641 days left in this nightmare /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
04-20-2007, 08:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that this is not just a "band wagon" or new subject. I have been an environmentalist and Global Warming/Climate Change evangelist ever since studying the subject, as a Physics major, 20 years ago. Like every other subject these idiots (eg8r et.al) pontificate about, they are talking out of their @sses, and don't have a clue.
<hr /></blockquote> Yeah because some joker called moblsv says so. Hey, did you hear he was studying the subject about 20 years ago while majoring in Physics. He must know what he is talking about. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Anthropologic Climate Change is a fact. PERIOD!!!! <hr /></blockquote> Oh, there go, the Physics major who once studied global warming and climate change has told us it is a fact. He even found the caps key. Well, I guess that just closes the case on the many of scientists who disagree with this self-proclaimed evangelist.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-20-2007, 08:58 AM
Thanks Moblsv, /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
OMG, 641 days! I don't think I can handle it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Well, according to his usual vacation trend, guess that means he'll only have about 400 days to do damage! Then, if one considers that everyone around him obviously has Alsheimers, (sp) maybe they'll forget to do what he tells them to do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
04-20-2007, 09:12 AM
Here is a column by a non-science person who quotes the science people... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Chill out over global warming (http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807)

I have never read this guys column before but he seems like someone with his head screwed up right, not like the goofy physics major with some studying in climate change.

Now, some studying 20 years ago is something to get a few around here all excited, but the guy quoted in the article has been doing this for 50 years. I tend to think he knows a little more than our "climate change evangelist".

[ QUOTE ]
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

<hr /></blockquote> Darn, too bad our resident "evangelist" did not start his studies a little sooner, maybe he would be telling us all to buy eskimo jackets.

[ QUOTE ]
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard." <hr /></blockquote> Hmm, seems like another guy in the "know" does not believe everything is as cut and dried as the resident climate change evangelist.

[ QUOTE ]
Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it. <hr /></blockquote> Funniest line in the entire column. Hey mister climate change evangelist, have you requested a first class spot on Gore's climate killing plane?

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s." <hr /></blockquote> Oh no, the guys who no more than our resident evangelist just will not stop. Here they are telling us the climate change is very natural and has been going on for quite some time. Sure humans might have a very small part but they are not the cause. Not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike. <hr /></blockquote> Not a bad ending. Truth be told, Gore is as close to this authors definition of a facist as their could be. On top of that he lives a lifestyle the contrasts everything he preaces. I wonder if our resident evangelist is as equally uncaring for the environment as his prophet Gore is.

eg8r

moblsv
04-20-2007, 09:20 AM
The "global cooling" science is also correct. Aerosols cause cooling, but CO2, and other warming forcing factors, outweigh the cooling factors. The real irony here is that the "Global Cooling" elements are masking the severity of the CO2 problem.

I don't expect you to comprehend any of this, just keep right on going with your web searches that tell you what you want to hear.

eg8r
04-20-2007, 10:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect you to comprehend any of this, just keep right on going with your web searches that tell you what you want to hear. <hr /></blockquote> You got it mister climate change evangelist.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
04-20-2007, 10:26 AM
The United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. And if the U.N. says it then it's got to be true. Is this a Inconvenient Truth?

TomBrooklyn
04-20-2007, 11:23 AM
Singer Sheryl Crow has started a Global Warming Awareness Tour. Her first stop was in Texas. On a video interview on MSNBC on April 12, an associate of her's noted that it snowed in Texas on Easter and cited this as evidence of global warming.

If global warming continues at this pace unabated, were all going to freeze!

wolfdancer
04-20-2007, 11:58 AM
"What does your question have to do with my post?"

Everything!!!!
We're all trying to understand why you can write scientists off as loony alarmists

TomBrooklyn
04-20-2007, 01:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> We're all trying to understand why you can write scientists off as loony alarmists <hr /></blockquote>
Scientists who subscribe to the theory of Global Warming are much more likely than scientists who don't to recieve grants--which are their lifeblood. The minority of scientists who have the integrity to go public with the information that global warming due to CO2 is a farce are much less likely to receive funding.

Further, they will be vociforously attacked by the sham scientists as well as the multitude of government appointees and "enviromental journalists" who are now drawing a salary or recieving grants because of the "need to study" this "worldwide threat."

Many scientists have resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because the IPCC has altered or deleted the scientific data in their reports to misrepresent the findings and draw unclear or erroneous conclusions in a way that ties CO2 to global warming. Many other scientists disagree with the IPCC's findings yet the IPCC still attaches their names to their reports as if they approve them.

The IPCC then claims something like the top 2500 scientists in the world agree while in fact many have resigned, many disagree, and many of those 2500 are not even scientists--they are just associated with the organization in some way. Studying Global Warming has become a multi-billion dollar industry. People are protecting their livelyhoods, not the enviroment.

wolfdancer
04-20-2007, 01:46 PM
Tom, you sound more knowledgeable on the topic then I am.
I still think though, that these greenhouse gases emitted, are contributing to global warming.

While methane is more "potent" then CO2....the fact is that CO@ levels are rising around 1.5ppm per year...
"The Discovery of Global Warming (2003) by Spencer Weart." This is a historical
account of the science and the scientists who discovered global warming including my
favorite, Svante Arrehnius, who used the infrared spectrum of moonlight, in 1896, to
predict that doubling CO2 would raise global temperature by 3-6° C (whereas the modern
prediction is 2-5°C). There is a good discussion of piecing together the band saturation
effect in this book."
Are you also writing off the "Asian Brown Cloud" as more junk science?


http://www.adb.org/vehicle-emissions/General/images/greenhouse.gif

wolfdancer
04-20-2007, 02:31 PM
Mac, what's amazing to me is that the belief/non-belief seems to be divided along political beliefs. I can understand why the oil cartel a** kissing, Bush and friends would oppose it......but one would think that the right would have enough concerns about how this could impact the futures of their children and grand children....more then how it affect their own portfolios.....But I guess it goes back to the almighty dollar...

Sid_Vicious
04-20-2007, 03:05 PM
You'd think, but even average middle class friends of mine don't care about their own children, just today's politics. Dumb as rocks and pathetic excuses for parents IMO...sid

wolfdancer
04-20-2007, 03:25 PM
I don't see how you can view that post as argumentative.
I conceded that the topic was debatable, and just pointed out that you seem to consider all proponents of the theory..."alarmists"

eg8r
04-20-2007, 03:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But I guess it goes back to the almighty dollar... <hr /></blockquote> It sure does, and as you were informed the ones trying to prove the global warming are the ones getting the dollars.

eg8r

eg8r
04-20-2007, 03:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you can view that post as argumentative. <hr /></blockquote> Your entire attitude to every post of mine is argumentative.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
04-20-2007, 04:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Mac, what's amazing to me is that the belief/non-belief seems to be divided along political beliefs. I can understand why the oil cartel a** kissing, Bush and friends would oppose it......but one would think that the right would have enough concerns about how this could impact the futures of their children and grand children....more then how it affect their own portfolios.....But I guess it goes back to the almighty dollar... <hr /></blockquote>Woolfy -- Theze are the dark ages, the people who follow us over (hopefully) the next 100,000 years will hate this (our) generation, ie us selfish, superstitious, ankles.

Mind u, i sort of agree with what Tom sez, about the science establishment. The science establishment is not to be trusted.

But the main enemy of the environment, ie the future, is religion. This might partly explain the dem/rep split.

And most of the talk that u see (hear) about the climate and droughts etc have little to do with GW, most climate issues (ie rainfall) are due to pollution. madMac.

Gayle in MD
04-20-2007, 07:52 PM
Let's not forget the how they fed the poisoned kool aide to their kids, to, in the big group suicide. "Brainwashed" supercedes parental responsibility.

Did you see the poll about Fox News, those who watch Jon Stewart are better informed that Fox viewers. What does that tell ya! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
04-20-2007, 07:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But the main enemy of the environment, ie the future, is religion. This might partly explain the dem/rep split.

<font color="red">No truer words were ever spoken, and also the biggest enemy of democracy, and peace. </font color>

And most of the talk that u see (hear) about the climate and droughts etc have little to do with GW, most climate issues (ie rainfall) are due to pollution. madMac.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">While that is true, Bush has definately set us back a decade with his corporate friendly propaganda, and his removal of environmental standards and regulation. </font color>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

cushioncrawler
04-20-2007, 08:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
But the main enemy of the environment, ie the future, is religion. This might partly explain the dem/rep split.

<font color="red">No truer words were ever spoken, and also the biggest enemy of democracy, and peace. </font color>

And most of the talk that u see (hear) about the climate and droughts etc have little to do with GW, most climate issues (ie rainfall) are due to pollution. madMac.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">While that is true, Bush has definately set us back a decade with his corporate friendly propaganda, and his removal of environmental standards and regulation. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <hr /></blockquote>Gayle -- My "GW" meant "global warming". Yes, dubya has put us/u all back a long way, as did Reagan -- dont know much about other prezzyz, whether they were good or bad -- were any any good ??

wolfdancer
04-20-2007, 09:05 PM
Ed, my minds made up....Global Warming is real, and we are contributing to it....
and that's my final answer....

wolfdancer
04-20-2007, 09:42 PM
This seems to be an easily understood article on Global Warming:
web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)
Isn't it odd that the largest group of scientists that oppose the cause and effects theory....represent The American Association of Petroleum Geologists....surprise, surprise!!!
While some (and some here) prefer to believe it is some leftist, liberal...scam
"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824"
AND the article does mention pre-human global warming as well

wolfdancer
04-20-2007, 10:10 PM
well, we do seem to be on opposite ends of many current topics. AND...your replies leave little room for lively debate. First I have to respond to the personal insults,
then try to point out how you have changed what was originally posted...to something else.
It wouldn't bother me if you would like to call a "cease fire" I'll ignore your posts, and won't comment on them....you can keep reading mine for your personal enlightenment on an issue, and reserve your laudatory comments just for PMs
have a good weekend...

eg8r
04-21-2007, 06:34 AM
Good for you.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-21-2007, 07:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]


Many scientists have resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because the IPCC has altered or deleted the scientific data in their reports to misrepresent the findings and draw unclear or erroneous conclusions in a way that ties CO2 to global warming. Many other scientists disagree with the IPCC's findings yet the IPCC still attaches their names to their reports as if they approve them.
<hr /></blockquote>

Tom,
I would think that unless one made a study of the affiliations of the Scientists who disagree, this statement could be a bit suspect.

The Oil industry has spent a fortune supressing the global warming evidence, assisted by the Bush administration, which is wrought with Oil connections. Regardless of which side of the argument is correct, intimidating Scientist, censoring their opinions and results of their studies, by the administration, is surely against the best interest of the public, and an indeniable illegal and immoral action against the American people who pay for these studies. If that isn't Orwellian, and corrupt, I don't know what is.

Also, the fact that people make money, 9or are payed for their expertise, does not automatically prove that what they are saying is false. Everybody has to make a living. Such statements were also made against the many authors who tried to warn the American people early on of this administration's illegal activities, lies and incompetence. Obviously, events sicne then have proven them to have been correct, although the main position of the right at that time was that people were trying to make money off of their books. Just one more example of how the false, illogical arguments, usually created by a thug like Karl Rove, or Gonzales, against those who try to expose this administration's illegal, immoral, anti-american actions, are absurd.

Most of the Scientists I have watched as they gave testimony to the congress, certainly were impressive, and genuine in their well presented concerns. They were treated by Republicans in the same way as 9/11 families, whistleblowers, and other dedicated Americans have been treated, regardless of their expertise or vast experience. The reactions of the right alone, make their side of any argument suspicious, IMO. Since their mission is always to suppress the truth, iontimidate experts from speaking out, and kill the messengers, as they create fantasy in place of facts, one wonders how they manage to maintain any supporters.

I will be buying stock in crayons for the next pre-election tests for voting rights. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

TomBrooklyn
04-21-2007, 08:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I tend to defer to the experts when I know that my own abilities to decipher the science is limited<hr /></blockquote><blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ...my minds made up....Global Warming is real, and we are contributing to it...<hr /></blockquote>
Many researchers have expressed concern that an apparent stifling of scientific debate has made it nearly impossible for non-scientists to get a clear picture of what, if anything, is really going on.

<font color="red"> Researchers Are Being Paid to Produce Science That Promotes Alarmism </font color>

An alarming report produced by Washington State showed that the Cascade Mountain snow pack was down 50% in 1995 from what it was in 1950, and the report was widely cited by scientists and politicians as evidence of Global Warming.

But then Marc Albright, the Assistant Climatologist for Washington State, published a paper called "The Myth of the Vanishing Cascade Mountain Snow Pack," that showed it had actually increased over the last 30 years, and he pointed out the snowfall in 1950 was a near-record low and the one in 1995 a near-record high. The former study had cherry picked those two years to try to make their point.

When confronted with the evidence later, Washington State's Head Climatologist Phillip Mote admitted the former study was wrong. In the meantime however, rather than lauding Mr. Albright work, he fired him.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski then got into the firing act by canning his State Climatologist after the scientist questioned some of the more extreme predictions of the Global Warming alarmists.

Both these states would stand to forfeit massive amounts of government funding if it were determined that humans are not significantly contributing to global warming.

Patrick J. Michaels, a Research Professor at the University of Virginia and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, has expressed his concern about the developing trend in Global Warming "science" by publicly stating "society losses massively when this happens to science" while noting that "diversity and challenge are the keys to scientific progress."

TomBrooklyn
04-21-2007, 09:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)Isn't it odd that the largest group of scientists that oppose the cause and effects theory....represent The American Association of Petroleum Geologists...surprise!!<hr /></blockquote> While the AAPG has taken what could be construed as a self serving position, I doubt anyone gives much creedance to what Petroleum Geologists think about Climate Change. Anyway, I have contacted them with a request to advise me exactly what their position on Global Warming is and what they have based it on.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBk:</font><hr> Many scientists have resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because the IPCC has altered or deleted the scientific data in their reports <hr /></blockquote> Tom, I would think that unless one made a study of the affiliations of the Scientists who disagree, this statement could be a bit suspect. The Oil industry has spent a fortune supressing the global warming evidence <hr /></blockquote>Hi Gayle,

- Can anybody cite any reports produced or actions taken by any oil companies regarding Global Warming?

* None of the scientists I am aware of that resigned under protest from the IPCC have recieved any funding from or been hired by any oil companies.

* I don't think the oil companies are very concerned about energy consumption changes that may come about from global warming concerns. Fossil fuel consumption and prices are at an all time high and the USA companies don't even have enough of their own oil to meet current demand. Based on current usage projections and known and projected reserves, in a hundred years or so there won't be any oil left anywhere in the world. The oil companies are going to get in the business of alternative energy sources or die.

Gayle in MD
04-21-2007, 11:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The oil companies are going to get in the business of alternative energy sources or die.

<hr /></blockquote>

While that may be true, unless the potential threat, notice I am saying, Potential... is taken seriously, and studies continue, free of corporate interests, or covered up by corrupt political leaders, the results of scientific studies may continue to be under attack, and intimidation. All involved should be in support of scientific studies, and continued efforts to prevent the interference of corruption. When an administration allows the Oil industry to set our energy policies, one can hardly expect the result will be factual information, fed to the public. This makes atleast one side of the argument more suspect, IMO.

Further, if your projections for future actions of the corporate interests are reliable, our presence in Iraq, should be closely scrutinized, and so far I have seen little to suggest that the fossil fuel industry is doing anything but dragging it's collective feet, and covering up for the bad effects of their product.

The animal kingdom is sending us some very strong messages, IMO, and just as an uneducated observer, there seems to be a great deal of readily available, easy to observe, results of some kind of severe climate change happening, and a whole range of questionable changes, in the animal kingdom, which point to that.

Had these last six years been spent in vigorous study, undeterred by the administration, I suspect that many more results could have surfaced by now. Funny how they used the 1% solution to base an illegal occupation of a country against the majority opinion of National Security Estimates by experts, to do as they, and the oil industry, could benefit from financially, in their own interests of producing more oil, not less oil, yet have chosen to ignore, and surpress scientific results, as they intermingle Oil Lobbyists with Government Environmental Protection Agencies.

If I had to chose between what each group of Scientists are are contending, the ones which are connected to the Bush administration, would certainly not be among those whom I would take seriously. Hence, my original statement, we must all consider the source, however, aquiring grants for studies, seems a weak comparrison to the launching of all out war, against a country which was of no immediate threat. If the Global Warming believers, are correct in their studies, we could be losing valuable time, through the many roadblocks being thrown in our path by Bush, and his corporate oil fascist friends, who IMO, seek to put off doing anything at all for as long as possible.

Just my 2 cents...

Gayle in Md.

TomBrooklyn
04-21-2007, 04:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> All involved should be in support of scientific studies, and continued efforts to prevent the interference of corruption. <hr /></blockquote> That was my point. However, how could the oil companies corrupt scientific research on Global Warming even if they wanted to? It is Government Agencies and compliant scientists that are in a position to corrupt their findings. Agencies and scientists who rely on Government funding to build their beaurocratic empires and fund their research, also know as keeping their jobs. Isn't it obvious that the more alarmist their findings are, the more money they are likely to get to research the "problem?"

If a scientist nowadays wants to study something like, lets say, the effects of forest fires on the habitat of caribou, he would prepare a grant request for "The Effect of Forrest Fires on the Habitat of Caribou and Global Warming" in order to be more likely to get the funding.

The oil companies have recorded staggering record profits in recent years, they will continue to prosper magnificently regardless of whether there is global warming or not, they are financially self sufficient, they receive no Government funding, and they couldn't give a hoot about global warming.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> When an administration allows the Oil industry to set our energy policies, one can hardly expect the result will be factual information, fed to the public. <hr /></blockquote> Whoa. Since when has the oil industry set energy policy? And what energy policy are you talking about? Does the US Government even have an energy policy?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> if your projections for future actions of the corporate interests are reliable, [the oil business will be obsolete in 100 years or so] our presence in Iraq should be closely scrutinized, and so far I have seen little to suggest that the fossil fuel industry is doing anything but dragging it's collective feet. <hr /></blockquote> Are you now you now suggesting that while you disapprove of the oil companies having secretly infiltrated the US Government and set an energy policy that no one knows about; you support having the oil companies contribute to US Foreign Affair decisions and the conduct of the Iraq War? This is getting bizarre.

wolfdancer
04-21-2007, 09:47 PM
Gayle, I'm watching a documentary right now on the Discovery Channel....this might be science fiction for Tom, Ed, Steve....hard to dispute what has already happened though
I just wrote out some of the things....but deleted it. It's a waste of time...
I think I'd rather argue politics with them, then read how they try to explain all this away....

wolfdancer
04-21-2007, 10:28 PM
I'd sure like you and Ed to explain away the documentary I am watching right now on the Discovery Channel....you might be able to write off the future predictions...pretty hard to dispute what has already occurred though....
A multi billion dollar industry...to fabricate reports an GW....this must be a worldwide conspiracy....
It's just an urban legend then...like Bigfoot?...
If it wasn't so tragic...like the 30,000 heat related deaths in Europe in 2005.....

TomBrooklyn
04-22-2007, 12:09 AM
Hi wolf,
No one is disputing that there is global warming. If there wasn't global warming there would be glaciers hundreds of feet thick melting on my doorstep in Brooklyn, NY as there was 10,000 years ago. Only a few miles from here one can see the scratches in large surface rocks that the glaciers carved. The matter at hand is whether humans are adding to global warming and increasing it in some unnatural way, and if CO2 is the culprit.

As far as computer modeling future climate, yes they can be easily manipulated to predict any kind of weather you want. Just change a paramater or two and bingo--different result.

nAz
04-22-2007, 01:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> When an administration allows the Oil industry to set our energy policies, one can hardly expect the result will be factual information, fed to the public. <hr /></blockquote> Whoa. Since when has the oil industry set energy policy? And what energy policy are you talking about? Does the US Government even have an energy policy?
<hr /></blockquote>
************************************************** *******************
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842_pf.html


************************************************** *******************
TomB it is possible that they were just hanging around smoking crack cocaine and getting lap dances... or maybe they were doing the worse possible most offensive most deceitful most treasonous thing that can be done in the white house... getting a blow job from some intern. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-22-2007, 07:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]


Quote Gayle in MD:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All involved should be in support of scientific studies, and continued efforts to prevent the interference of corruption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was my point. However, how could the oil companies corrupt scientific research on Global Warming even if they wanted to? <font color="red">You haven't read about cheney's secret meetings with the Oil Industry, allowing them to set the energy policy? Or the former Oil Lobbyist, running the Department Of Energy? </font color> It is Government Agencies and compliant scientists that are in a position to corrupt their findings. <font color="red">Exactly my point, but the Administration pays Scientists, secretly, to pooh pooh the findings which support the Global Warming theories. Conncet dots, please, Cheney and the Bush family, and corporate Oil fascists... </font color> Agencies and scientists who rely on Government funding to build their beaurocratic empires and fund their research, also know as keeping their jobs. Isn't it obvious that the more alarmist their findings are, the more money they are likely to get to research the "problem?" <font color="red">Again, the Thrust from the Administration is to suppress any findings which support Global Warming...add to that, the results which can be seen with the naked eye, and the reaction of people who have nothing to gain from not being truthful, people like Prince Charles, for example, and the Scientists from dictatorships, and third world countries. There is just too much evidence, in all decisions made by Bush, that if he is pro oil enough, to launch a war, on lies, for oil, he's not going to be awarding Scientists prizes for telling us the truth. </font color>

If a scientist nowadays wants to study something like, lets say, the effects of forest fires on the habitat of caribou, he would prepare a grant request for "The Effect of Forrest Fires on the Habitat of Caribou and Global Warming" in order to be more likely to get the funding. <font color="red">that strikes me as a huge assumption, if you don't know the Scientist, or the wording of his papers. </font color>

The oil companies have recorded staggering record profits in recent years, they will continue to prosper magnificently regardless of whether there is global warming or not, they are financially self sufficient, they receive no Government funding, and they couldn't give a hoot about global warming. <font color="red">OMG, are you saying you don't know about the huge amount of subsidies they have gained from Bush???? You think they're jumping hot to spend any of their profits on OUR future??? I don't. </font color>


Quote Gayle in MD:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an administration allows the Oil industry to set our energy policies, one can hardly expect the result will be factual information, fed to the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa. Since when has the oil industry set energy policy? And what energy policy are you talking about? Does the US Government even have an energy policy? <font color="red">Yes, we do, but it was planned behind closed doors, between Dick Cheney, and big oil, and he went all the way to the Supreme Court to protect not only what was said, but whom all was in the room...Tricky Dicky was hiding something, for sure...add that to former Oil Lobbyists, running the Department Of energy, again, SOS...Corporate Oil, Pharmeceuticals, Credit Card companies, The Military Industrial Complex, read thieving contractors in Iraq, Look at the profits, then follow the money...then research the resulting financial assault on the average American. </font color>

Quote Gayle in MD:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if your projections for future actions of the corporate interests are reliable, [the oil business will be obsolete in 100 years or so] our presence in Iraq should be closely scrutinized, and so far I have seen little to suggest that the fossil fuel industry is doing anything but dragging it's collective feet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you now you now suggesting that while you disapprove of the oil companies having secretly infiltrated the US Government and set an energy policy that no one knows about; you support having the oil companies contribute to US Foreign Affair decisions <font color="red">Absolutely Not! </font color> and the conduct of the Iraq War? This is getting bizarre. <font color="red">Where in the world did you get that idea? My belief is that if we did not have a President with strong ties to the Oil Industry, we wouldn't even be IN Iraq. the Oil was the only reason they went there, instead of concentrating on gettin al Qaeda, and bin Laden. Oil Prices go through the roof everytime a Bush is in the white House. Intelligence was trumped up by the administration to justify going into Iraq in the first place. Our troops are dying, to make Cheney, Bush and the Oil Industry and contractor, wealthy. hence the entire premise, that we can prevent terrorist attacke by fighting as targets of all, in the Middle of Sectarian, Civil war, is absurd on it's face. You cannot force Democracy on a bunch of barbarians, anymore than you can fight a war on an Ideological tactic, like terrorism. they don't hate us for our freedom, they hate the West, because of decades of foreign policies which supported their tyrants, killed millions of Iraqis, and Arabs, and interfered with their own wars against their own tyrants by supporting the tyrants when it was precieved as beneficial to interests of the Occupying forces, Russia, Great Britian, and us. We have propped more tyranical dictators in their world, than any other country.</font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
04-22-2007, 07:56 AM
Jack,
A quick review of book titles written over the last six years, explains everything...

BTW, Schauer, former bin Laden Unit director, in his new book, Imperial Hubris gives further testimonial of the way Bush and Cheney ram-rodded the entire C.I.A. on their preferred intelligence,(lies) to justify occupation of Iraq, and how it was solely for financial Oil Interests. All this BS about Iraqi Freedom, They hate us for our freedom, we'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, total Bull****...but then, the right wants to use a person's income to dispute Scientific studies, tarnish Democratic presidential contenders, and respected journalistic authors, while convenieantly failing to follow the billions and billions made off the entire Bush foreign policy...and check out who funds all their foreign policies...launched from the American Enterprise Institute....all those who were so damn smart, pushed to occupy Iraq for regime change, (OIL) -had no personal war experience, and not one correct prediction for what Iraq would look like after the invasion, nor a single realistic plan. In short, a bunch of elite millionaires, with no war knowledge, unrealistic, decietful ideology, financial interests of their own, and no common sense. This is what American troops are dying for, and yet those who are trying to protect them, cut the money from bush, as incompetenct as his appointees, are supposedly not supporting our troops. PALEEEEZE! when a Democrat describes the situation in Iraq, which has already been labeled as "Dire and Degrading" by the Iraq Study Group, and it obviously does not show real improvment, the right would rather blame the reported new, lable reality as the liberal press and deny reality in their partisan blindness. Screw history, Screw a bevvy of respected military Generals, Screw every single foreign policy expert, just stay with the denial, use labels and rhetoric, paint those in touch with reality as being for the terrorist because they speak out against incompetence and lies, and send in more to the slaughter. Totally disgusting.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-22-2007, 08:07 AM
BWA HA HA HA... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif Love the way you always cut through the BS with such wit!

pooltchr
04-22-2007, 04:18 PM
Gayle,
Just one simple question. If oil is the reason we are in Iraq, then where is all the oil? It's not finding it's way into MY gas tank!
Steve

eg8r
04-22-2007, 05:15 PM
Tom great post. I have tried to say the same thing many times. No one on this planets disputes global warming, the issue is whether humans are causing it and to what extent (my bet is closer to the 2% range, quite minimal).

As far as these computer models, they are really amazing but these are the same models that cannot predict tomorrow's weather correctly.

eg8r

eg8r
04-22-2007, 05:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just one simple question. If oil is the reason we are in Iraq, then where is all the oil? <hr /></blockquote> China.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-22-2007, 05:41 PM
Why not google, US/Iraqi/Oil deals, /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Steve, the oil in Iraq, is not only the most accessable, but the richest coming out of the ground, and requires the least amount of refining.

If you think we didn't go into Iraq, because of Oil, then why didn't we occupy the countries in the Middle East, which were more immediate threats?

The inter-relationships between the Middle East countries, is very complex, and obviously, the area was so volital, disturbing the balance over there, was a stupid thing to do.

How has our presence in that region, helped Arabs, or anyone else. We should have stayed the course, IOW, wiped out al Qaeda, cleaned up Afghanistan, and continued with sanctions, and other international pressure to keep Saddam right where we had him. We had plenty of foreign support, and had we had an honets administration, and followed our princeiples, as Americans, while searching out the terrorist cells all over the world, just imagine, how much international help we would have had. Instead, we have lost our respect from other countries in the world, gained enemies, Al Qaeda is not re-grouping, our debt has mounted, and our ground resources are depleted, and stretched.

If one looks at the circumstances, and then defends Bush, well, Dream on, buddy, because you sure as hell won't convince the rest of the world that Bush is a good guy.

Gayle in Md.

Everything...absolutely everything, points to that.

The lies, were the path to destruction, as always.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
04-22-2007, 07:59 PM
WH Aide Heads Back To Oil Industry
WASHINGTON, June 15, 2005(CBS/AP) A White House official who stirred a controversy by altering government reports on climate change is going back to work for the oil industry.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Philip Cooney's departure was long planned and "unrelated in any way" to the furor.

Prior to joining President Bush's Council on Environmental Quality, Cooney was an oil industry lobbyist. On Tuesday, Exxon Mobil announced it had hired Cooney for as-yet-unspecified duties.

Environmentalists attacked Cooney after documents were published showing his alterations overruled language supplied by government scientists and downplayed a link between human activity and global warming.

The administration maintains there's substantial uncertainty about a link.

McClellan said the charge that Cooney was just doing the oil industry's bidding is "absolutely false."

In an earlier statement, the White House made no mention of Cooney's plans to join Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company. Its executives have been among the most skeptical in the oil industry about the prospects of climate change because of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The leading greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Like the Bush administration, Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond has argued strongly against the Kyoto climate accord and has raised questions about the certainty of climate science as it relates to possible global warming. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have singled out Raymond and Exxon Mobil for protests because of its position on climate change.

Last week, the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that helps whistleblowers, made available documents showing that Cooney was closely involved in final editing of two administration climate reports. He made changes that critics said consistently played down the certainty of the science surrounding climate change.

After Cooney's involvement in editing the climate reports was first reported by The New York Times, the White House defended the changes, saying they were part of the normal, wide-ranging review process and did not violate an administration pledge to rely on sound science.

A whistleblower, Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the government office that coordinates federal climate change programs, made the documents — showing handwritten edits by Cooney — available to the Project on Government Accountability and, in turn, to news media.




So an ex-oil lobbyist [ appointed by Bush who has NO scientific backround ], sits in his office and changes a report put together by 100,s of scientists [experts]in order to downplay any link between mankind and Glo Wa and when he gets caught, he leaves to join Exxon!!???

If people use less oil, the price will go down. Demand is what drives the price up.
The price is being manipulated, especially now. Its artificial. The oil industry LOVES conflict in the ME or anywhere there is oil. Geez, 6 guys armed with AKs kidnap an oil worker in Nigeria and oil jumps $10!!!!!!

Iraq has huge oil reserves but they are producing less oil now than under Saddam! [ when was the last time you heard of an oil installation being attack in Iraq? Never. It doesn't happen because they are too well protected but still only a dribble of oil comes out of Iraq.]

The oil industry will be against anything that limits oil consumption, including Glo Wa.

Q........Exxon made 40 billion dollars last year. Thats more than most countries in the world do! [ Its also a record for Exxon and beats the previous record, from last year!]

wolfdancer
04-22-2007, 10:46 PM
LOL !!!
I stopped reading the "just say no" "don't ask, don't tell" side of the debate....

Bobbyrx
04-23-2007, 12:20 PM
Steve,
There sure has been a lot written here about oil and global warming....but no answer to your question about where the oil is and to mine about the The United Nations report that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

pooltchr
04-23-2007, 07:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Steve,
There sure has been a lot written here about oil and global warming....but no answer to your question about where the oil is and to mine about the The United Nations report that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't expect straight answers to straight questions from the left...but it's always interesting to see how they duck the tough questions.
Steve

eg8r
04-23-2007, 08:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect straight answers to straight questions from the left...but it's always interesting to see how they duck the tough questions. <hr /></blockquote> This is exactly why they don't do well on the radio. Long live Air America. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-24-2007, 06:41 AM
Hey Steve,
If you find watching others duck questions, interesting, try and catch Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is being repeated several times this week, C=Span 3. Her appearance, on Jan 11th, followed Bush's statements on Jan 10th, the ones where after pretending to seek the opinions of the vast majority of foreign relations experts, Civilian, and Military, former Secretaries Of State, defense, C.I.A., and Pentagon, Middle East experts which had lived as long as twelve years in the Middle East, and then, he did the exact opposite, of what the collective expert opinion advised, axed the Generals on the ground, whom Ganeral Abasaid said, To A Man, did not approve escalation, or the surge of more troops, ignored the Recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, ignored the wishes of the vast majority of Iraqis, and Americans, and escalated the war.

You'll really enjoy, watching Rice, deny that the violence in Iraq, is Iraqi against Iraqi, no, it's just Sunni and Shiia suicide bombers, ??????????????, and that it makes sense to lose more Armerican lives, in order to give Iraqis, "Breathing Room" to meet their political obligations, which they have failed miserably to do in four years, and risk more American deaths, on Iraqi promises, after four years of broken promises.

After over six years of George Bush in the White House, nothing could be more absurd, than a rightie, which you definately are, being accusatorial of ANYONE Ducking questions, when your party has created an entire new language to avoid answering questions, such as, Augmentation...which is really an escalation. Find ducking questions interesting? Tune in daily to the White House Press Briefing, you'll be spellbound!

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
04-25-2007, 05:53 PM
Still no answer Steve......by the way, what ever happened to acid rain?

Qtec
04-25-2007, 08:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Still no answer Steve......by the way, what ever happened to acid rain? <hr /></blockquote>

The oil is in the ground.
Acid rain - look it up.
Animals? What do you want to do? Should the world stop eating meat? Isn't it obvious that you need a LOT of livestock to feed 6.5 BILLION people?
[ in 1750 it was between 600 mil and 1 Billion!]

Q

Chopstick
04-26-2007, 06:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Still no answer Steve......by the way, what ever happened to acid rain? <hr /></blockquote>

Officially acid rain no longer exists since it is caused by the presence of sulphur in the atmosphere and is a global cooling agent.

Bobbyrx
04-26-2007, 10:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Still no answer Steve......by the way, what ever happened to acid rain? <hr /></blockquote>

The oil is in the ground. <font color="blue"> What!?!? Haliburton hasn't gotten it yet...say it ain't so </font color>
Acid rain - look it up. <font color="blue">the research dollars for acid rain are where the research dollars for global warming will be in a few years...gone....and you will hear about global warming about as much as you hear about acid rain now </font color>
Animals? What do you want to do? Should the world stop eating meat? Isn't it obvious that you need a LOT of livestock to feed 6.5 BILLION people?
[ in 1750 it was between 600 mil and 1 Billion!]
<font color="blue">Why no outcry over global warming producing livestock? I'll gladly not eat meat if I can still drive a car. That would be better than buying carbon offsets like Al Gore and I wouldn't be buying them from myself like he does </font color>

Gayle in MD
04-26-2007, 10:46 AM
When it comes to ducking questions, Steve, you're one of the best examples. You never answer questions. Answer some of mine, for a change.

I'll tell you where some of that oil is, alQaeda, and insurgents are stealing it, and buying more weapons with which to kill our troops. Bush, unfortunately, has failed to secure the oil lines, and didn't know how degraded the facilities were before he occupied the country for no good reason. The condition of the infrastructures in Iraq, was just ONE, of the many things he either didn't know, or knew, but covered up, such as, no WMD's were in there, and No Connection to al Qaeda was ever seriously suspected by any National Intelligence Estimates, which he lied about.

As for the positions of the right, their opinions should really be completely overlooked. They've been wrong about everything. Refuse to admit they've been wrong about everything, and because of it, each one of us is in debt for $30,000.00, and still they insist that getting out of a militarily unwinnable war is logical. How much crazier can people be? This war in Iraq, is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American People, and roughly seventy percent of us realize that, and realize that there will continue to be terrorist attacks here in our country, rregardless of how long we waste American lives in Iraq, and in fact, the longer we stay, the more debt we run up, and the weaker our armed services become due to the inhumane treatment of our soldiers by Republicans like George Bush, and Senators who continue to lie about the war to try to help him, the happier is bin Laden, Iran, and Syria, and all the NEW terrorist organizations Bush has grown, will be.

Iraqis want us out, the majority of Americans want us out, the troops want us out, the Congressional Majority wants us out, bin Laden The American Enterprise Institute, aka, corporate war profiteers, and Ahmhadidadummy want us to stay. This war was a mistake, should never have been launched, and is not providing us any increased protection. It is an Iraqi Civil War. bush was not given the OPK to occupy Iraq, and only approved to use force only as a last resort, and only if intelligence proved he was a nuclear threat, and only after inspectors had completed their investigations. Bush occupied against our constitution, and against Congressional Law. He sould be impeached for intentionally lying the country into a war, and then following up by being completely incompetent.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
04-26-2007, 07:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> When it comes to ducking questions, Steve, you're one of the best examples. You never answer questions. Answer some of mine, for a change.

<font color="red"> I looked through this post, and didn't see any questions...just more of your ranting. </font color>

I'll tell you where some of that oil is, alQaeda, and insurgents are stealing it, and buying more weapons with which to kill our troops. <font color="red"> That can't be possible. I thought alQaeda wasn't in Iraq...that there is no connection between the two. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif </font color> Bush, unfortunately, has failed to secure the oil lines, and didn't know how degraded the facilities were before he occupied the country for no good reason. <font color="red"> So I guess by pulling our troops out, the oil lines will be secure? </font color> The condition of the infrastructures in Iraq, was just ONE, of the many things he either didn't know, or knew, but covered up, such as, no WMD's were in there, and No Connection to al Qaeda was ever seriously suspected by any National Intelligence Estimates, which he lied about. <font color="red"> Wait a minute. You just told me they are over there stealing the oil to buy weapons. Let me try to understand. They aren't there if the administration says they are, but they are there if you say they are????? </font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

My head hurts! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
04-26-2007, 09:11 PM
Nice try, Steve, but I've stated many times, there weren't in Iraqa, until bush drew them in with his incredibly stupid, poorly planned, illegal occupation of a foreign country, for the purpose of Regime Change, which is against the Geneva Convention Agreements and guide lines. But you just go right on ahead and twist the meaning of every post, and every expert opinion, every factual article or book written about the incompetence and dishonesty of this administration, as you have done for six years, yet never sighting a single reputable authority or document to prove any of the many false statements which you write here, such as WMD's in Iraq, and connections between Saddam and alQaeda.

As for the oil lines, the Iraqis will secure their own oil line, and get rid of al Qaeda, if we get the hell out, like they have said over and over they wish we would. The only reason why there are terrorist in Iraq, is that it's easy pickings to kill Americans who are stuck in the middle of the Iraqi Civil war, in Iraq, thanks to Bush. They were not there before the occupation, a fact which you fail to understand.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Bobbyrx
04-30-2007, 03:08 PM
That's right Steve...wake up for Pete's sake. Al-Qaeda was in India, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, Kenya, Ethiopia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Australia, Syria, Jordan, Indonesia, Isreal, Spain, the UK, Canada and the United States before we invaded, just to name a few. But to think they were Iraq......man that's really out there. How could you think such a thing.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2007, 07:16 AM
alQaeda was not in Iraq when we occupied, period. Our occupation, though, has given them a recruiting and training ground, and also, our torture, and prisons, and treatment of some Iraqis, has provided ample fury, which has resulted in new terrorist organizations, many new jihadists and extremists have splintered off and emerged as new threats to America and other countries.

As usual, your post provides little other than sarcasm. A poor substitute for facts, yet it is the only response any of us can expect from the Bushies on here. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Bobbyrx
05-01-2007, 09:49 AM
Which one of the countries listed did not have Al-Qaeda before 3/2003?

Gayle in MD
05-02-2007, 06:16 AM
What's the point? AlQaeda was not in Iraq, there was no connection between Saddam, and alQaeda, or Saddam and 9/11. The hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, following their terrorist leader, bL, also from Saudi Arabia, so Bush invades Iraq, <font color="red">??????? </font color> on lies, after exploiting our National disaster, 9/11, and our patriotism, and using fear to nock Americans into line behind their lies, and the result is kaos, death and destruction for Iraqis, death and casualties of our soldiers, and increased of the numbers of terrorists, and terrorist attacks around the world, and highway robbery of American Tax payers dollars by the Bush/Cheney/American Enterprise Institute/Corporate fascists pigs like Halliburton, who do business with terror supporters like Iran...and bin Laden is still free...bin Laden, remember huim <font color="red">???????? </font color> the greatest nuclear threat to America? However, thanks to our boy genius, George Bush, the puppet of the corporate thieves who are robbing us all blind, Saddam, who was no threat, is dead. Bush is a genius... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

End of story. They lied. They're still lying.

Bobbyrx
05-02-2007, 02:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>" What's the point? AlQaeda was not in Iraq" <font color="blue"> The point is how could they be in all these countries and not be in Iraq and to quote one of our favorite presidents who never lies "it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons'' on Larry King July 22, 2003
</font color>

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 07:00 AM
Because Saddam was a control freak, egomaniac, much like George Bush, and those who have made their life long intellectual careers studying the Middle East, <font color="red">(I have read their books, have you?) </font color> and the rulers of the countries in the Middle East, and the intel we gleaned from documents which were found after the invasion, and our own intelligence experts, all agree, that Saddam would never have knowingly allowed alQaeda in Iraq.

If you don't know by now that alqaeda was never in Iraq until George Bush played right into their hands and occupied Iraq, then you are poorly informed, and have not done your homework.

We were attacked on 9/11 by a group of Saudis, led by a Saudi, and we responded by attacking a country which had never attacked us, was no urgent threat to us, and had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Our focus after that attacked should have remained on bin Laden, and alQaeda, in Afghanistan. NOTHING was more important than that. going into Iraq has given bin Laden, and al Qaeda, strength, much greater numbers, and many more disgruntled Arabs who are now contributing to their cause against us. Leaving our troops in the middle of a centuries old slaughter, between Iraqis, has no effect against alQaeda. In fact, they're lovin' it. Terrorism, is not a country, it is an ideal. Regardless of how we fight terrorism, having a president who ignores our safety here at home, open borders, shipping containers, alQaeda cells right here, you name it, he has failed to address our most pressing threat on our own shores. Targeting individual cells, and training grounds, throughout the world, including here, using intense intelligence, is the only effective way to fight terrorism.

9/11 happened on George Bush's watch, shortly after he dismantled, and/or ignored, the well oiled machine created by the Clinton Administration, and in fact, the warnings which were ignored pre 9/11, came from that machine, and were completely ignored by the Bush administration, whose message to all of our intelligence experts, including those in the special Alex Unit, focused on alQaeda, was that they ONLY wanted to hear about Iraq, and they weren't going to swat at flies, hence, 9/11 went off without a hitch. Those are the facts.

DickLeonard
05-03-2007, 07:35 AM
Gayle all one has to do is watch Flight 93 to realize that GWB had his head up his ass on 911. The air traffic controllers are going bonkers. Norad was on Vacation they sent a plane with no weapons. Who is in Charge? I never saw such total incompetence at a time when we needed it most. Then to have the unmittigated gall to say were safer with them in control.

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 07:48 AM
Dick,
I have no doubt that the words which will be most used to describe the Bush administration for years to come will be incompetence, ignorance, deciet, denial, waste, fiasco, failure.

Even if one supposes that some good might have come from removing Saddam, which it couldn't have, an incompetenct administration with ties to those profitting from war, is the worst case scenario, regardless of what the goal may be. All that we have done in Iraq is grow terrorists, train terrorists, and remove one faction of Iraqi barbarians and corrupt regime, in order to prop up another faction of Iraqi barbarians, in another corrupt Regime. The world is a much more unsafe world, compliments of George Bush, who was drunk until he was forty. How anyone could have ever voted for him is beyond me.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
05-03-2007, 08:18 AM
Dick, Slate had an article yesterday....knocking George Tenet over his new book.....
web page (http://www.slate.com/id/2165269/nav/tap1/)
This excerpt from that article is revealing, if not scary:
in describing Tenet's reaction on the terrible morning of Sept. 11, 2001:

"This has bin Laden all over it," Tenet told Boren. "I've got to go." He also had another reaction, one that raised the real possibility that the CIA and the FBI had not done all that could have been done to prevent the terrorist attack. "I wonder," Tenet said, "if it has anything to do with this GUY TAKING FLYING LESSONS?."
So they knew about someone questionable...taking pilot lessons, but failed to investigate?
Too busy, I guess trying to find an excuse to invade IraQ.
While many people think that had something to do with oil...not so
In a Feb. 26 address, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called suggestions that the US is really after Iraq's oil "utter nonsense." (and if you can't believe the Donald...who can you believe...Bush/Cheney?)

"We don't take our forces and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does," he said. "We never have, and we never will. That's not how democracies behave."

Nonsense aside, the sands of Iraq hold oil... lots of it. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues."
....

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 09:08 AM
I don't think Hitchens accounts for the fact that as soon as Bush got into power, the Iraq thrust began. The message was quite clear, that this administration was ONLY interested in intel, and effort going toward their pre-election goal of invading Iraq. There were quite a number of people who resigned after 9/11 because they were so put off by the Bush Administration's complete lack of concern over bin Laden, and alqaeda, pre 9/11, and after. Although Tenet, IMO, was more interested in being one of the guys in the loop, than he was in debunking the administration's Iraq plans as illogical, many people were frustrated by this administrations' refusal to hear about anything BUT Iraq, and Saddam, before 9/11. IOW, pressure was applied to our Department heads in the form of Cheney, and Rice, insisting,..."I don't want to hear about anything else but Iraq. Don't bring me anything about anything other than Iraq."

This doesn't mean that Tenet wasn't remiss, but, as the Director of the CIA, he is still under the authority of the administration, as far as this administration goes. The Administration sets the points of interest. Obviously, in this administration, nothing was of interest but Iraq. It seems to have taken the sails out of a lot of people in the intelligence field, and many resigned because of it. IMO, Richard Clarkes' book, gives the best and most complete version of the pre, and shortly after, 9/11 story. I haven't read Tenet's book, but the mere fact that Rice did nothing when he did go to her in an emergency setting, over the coming al Qaeda attack intelligence, and she was the National Security Advisor to the President, and did nothing, add to that that the documents show that Kristol actually wrote years beforehand, that the way to get Americans behind the Iraq invasion was to wait for an attack disaster here in our country, and Rice was well aware of those sentiments, as Cheney was involved in the creation of that very ideology, .... did they really WANT to stop an attack? An attack, was the lynchpin of their entire Iraq invasion strategy. This is another one of those connect the dots pictures, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
05-03-2007, 09:21 AM
It's very hard to believe that an administration would wait for, even "invite" an attack......especially one like 9/11
We'll never know where flight 93 was going to crash into...but the White House could have been it's target...
It seems to be obvious as you point out that intel was ignored and all focus was on Iraq......
I doubt if Bush had any advance warning....because he wouldn't have looked so inept, so incapable of dealing with the situation, so lacking in leadership....during and after the attack.

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 09:25 AM
What I noticed about the way he looked that morning, more than anything else...He didn't look surprised..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif another thing,...he sure as hell didn't rush back to the White House... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Bobbyrx
05-03-2007, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

We were attacked on 9/11 by a group of Saudis, led by a Saudi, and we responded by attacking a country which had never attacked us, was no urgent threat to us, and had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Our focus after that attacked should have remained on bin Laden, and alQaeda, in Afghanistan. NOTHING was more important than that. going into Iraq has given bin Laden, and al Qaeda, strength, much greater numbers, and many more disgruntled Arabs who are now contributing to their cause against us. <font color="blue"> So going in Afghanistan didn't hurt the Arabs feeling but going into Iraq did? </font color> Leaving our troops in the middle of a centuries old slaughter, between Iraqis, has no effect against alQaeda. In fact, they're lovin' it. <font color="blue"> If they loving getting themselves killed by our military I guess they are </font color> Terrorism, is not a country, it is an ideal. Regardless of how we fight terrorism, having a president who ignores our safety here at home, open borders, shipping containers, alQaeda cells right here, you name it, he has failed to address our most pressing threat on our own shores. Targeting individual cells, and training grounds, throughout the world, including here, using intense intelligence, is the only effective way to fight terrorism. <font color="blue"> I agree with you on this one completely </font color>

9/11 happened on George Bush's watch, shortly after he dismantled, and/or ignored, the well oiled machine <font color="blue"> ??????? </font color> created by the Clinton Administration, and in fact, the warnings which were ignored pre 9/11, came from that machine, and were completely ignored by the Bush administration, whose message to all of our intelligence experts, including those in the special Alex Unit, focused on alQaeda, was that they ONLY wanted to hear about Iraq, and they weren't going to swat at flies, hence, 9/11 went off without a hitch. Those are the facts. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> If you are saying that the planning for 9/11 started January 20,2001 then I would say your "facts" are wrong. The well oiled machine that you speak of didn't keep them from wanting to kill us and planning to kill us. As for the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole, it doesn't look like Clinton's policies were too spectacular on terror. In "Behind the Oval Office" Dick Morris said “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”


</font color>

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 01:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> We were attacked on 9/11 by a group of Saudis, led by a Saudi, and we responded by attacking a country which had never attacked us, was no urgent threat to us, and had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Our focus after that attacked should have remained on bin Laden, and alQaeda, in Afghanistan. NOTHING was more important than that. going into Iraq has given bin Laden, and al Qaeda, strength, much greater numbers, and many more disgruntled Arabs who are now contributing to their cause against us. [ QUOTE ]
So going in Afghanistan didn't hurt the Arabs feeling but going into Iraq did? <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">That's right. Much of the Arab world was in favor of us. We had the world in our hands, before we became occupiers in Iraq. Even Iran was helping us, before your boy George, and his neocon retards screwed everything up. </font color> Leaving our troops in the middle of a centuries old slaughter, between Iraqis, has no effect against alQaeda. In fact, they're lovin' it. If they loving getting themselves killed by our military I guess they are Terrorism, is not a country, it is an ideal. Regardless of how we fight terrorism, having a president who ignores our safety here at home, open borders, shipping containers, alQaeda cells right here, you name it, he has failed to address our most pressing threat on our own shores. Targeting individual cells, and training grounds, throughout the world, including here, using intense intelligence, is the only effective way to fight terrorism. I agree with you on this one completely

9/11 happened on George Bush's watch, shortly after he dismantled, and/or ignored, the well oiled machine ??????? created by the Clinton Administration, and in fact, the warnings which were ignored pre 9/11, came from that machine, and were completely ignored by the Bush administration, whose message to all of our intelligence experts, including those in the special Alex Unit, focused on alQaeda, was that they ONLY wanted to hear about Iraq, and they weren't going to swat at flies, hence, 9/11 went off without a hitch. Those are the facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are saying that the planning for 9/11 started January 20,2001 then I would say your "facts" are wrong. <font color="red">They planned 9/11 for years. We had intel for years, albiet scant, we knew it was coming, eventually, and at the end, we had the most specific intel, which Bush failed to act on. </font color> The well oiled machine that you speak of didn't keep them from wanting to kill us and planning to kill us. <font color="red">Nothing is going to keep them from wanting to kill us. You seem to completely overlook that it was during the Reagan administration that we learned about bin Laden, and terrorism had been going on for decades before that. </font color> As for the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole, it doesn't look like Clinton's policies were too spectacular on terror. <font color="red">It is true that terrorism occured during Clinton's administration, but also during Nixon's and Reagan's. Do tell me, what Reagan did after our Marines were slaughtered? Nothing! clinton, on the other hand, had set up special units within our intelligence community to try and get bin Laden, without pissing off the rest of the Arab World, like Bush has done. Many of Reagan's policies, led to the growth, and determination of alQaeda. the intelligence on who actually planned the bombing of the Cole, was not determined for sure until after the election. I'm not saying Clinton was perfect, just that he didn't make everything worse than it already was, like Georgie boy has done. this entire Neocon ideology of pre-emptive war, and occupations in the middle east, and becoming the global commies of the future, is what got us into this mess.</font color> In "Behind the Oval Office" Dick Morris said “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.” <font color="red">BWA HA HA HA HA HA...Dick Morris! HA HA HA....Give me a break! </font color>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
05-03-2007, 05:23 PM
Tom, I'd only add that there is a big increase in the Co2 levels....and that and methane, seem to add to global warming.
AND...I read where there are only 50 years left....
Since there is disagreement amongst scientists....(with the overwhelming majority on my side).....neither one of us could change the other's mindset, with anything we write.
Icebergs in Brooklyn?????...not a bad idea for them hot summers there....