Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate - He won't eccept because he'd rather preach like a Dimi-god, unchallenged

CB

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:40:35 AM3/20/07

to

Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate

Al Gore has been challenged to an internationally televised debate on
"climate change" by Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher during her leadership of the United Kingdom.

In a formal press release from the Center for Science and Public Policy,
Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he
terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head,
nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on
climate is not dangerous."

Monckton said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed
science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is a foofaraw
of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent
schoolchildren worldwide."

Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head-to-head on the science,
politics, and religion of global warming in pages of the London Sunday
Telegraph last November.

As reported by NewsMax in November 2006, Monckton challenged a U.N. report
on climate change as "hysteria" over manmade global warming that distorts
the truth.

A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that
temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in
the Sunday Telegraph.

"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period.
It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years .
. .

"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real,
global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.

"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there.
There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There
was little ice at the North Pole - a Chinese naval squadron sailed right
around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."

Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the
past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.

In his most recent challenge to Gore, Monckton calls on the former vice
president to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that
could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor.

"If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our
time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should
welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide
audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious,
science-based challenge."

--
CB
What put's Algore in his lockbox?
http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Global%20Warming%20Problem.gif

2006 power bill
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.03.04.ConspicConsump-X.gif

Global warming on Mars
In its ninth year in orbit around Mars, NASA's Mars Global Surveyor has made
a number of surprising discoveries. For three Mars summers in a row,
deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the
previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress. Apparently,
President Bush's environmental policies are so destructive that they are
causing global warming throughout the solar system.
--Harry Dope

Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:44:36 AM3/20/07

to

.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!

http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

> Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

> Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston,
> Mass.

> Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=82

> Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
> Cave Junction, Ore.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=6

> Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences
> (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164

> Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and
> associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,
> Ottawa

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html

> Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada.
> Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1115
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=93

> Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University
> of Guelph, Ont.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/McKitrick_Fraud.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1008
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=107
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142

> Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg;
> environmental consultant

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1165

> Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and
> Sioux Lookout, Ont.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1174
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=88
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

> Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept.
> of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute
> of Technology

> Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University;
> Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of
> State Climatologists

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=912
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9

> Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia

> Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science
> Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

> Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of
> Connecticut

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=241
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25

jjm...@aol.com

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:45:49 AM3/20/07

to

A "Dimi-god"? That sounds like you, fuckwit.

lubow

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:49:47 AM3/20/07

to

Yeah...that's all Al Gore has to do with his time is to take challenges and
orders from Lord Haw Haw.

--
Lubow
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:45ff65c5$0$1378$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

CB

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:53:04 AM3/20/07

to

<jjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174365949.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

A dimi-god believes "there's no higher ruling authority" other than his own

Thie name be AlGore

Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:55:05 AM3/20/07

to

Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:55:46 AM3/20/07

to

On Mar 19, 8:53 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> <jjm1...@aol.com> wrote in message

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Message has been deleted

Bill Ward

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 4:01:45 AM3/20/07

to

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:27:16 -0600, Click wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:40:35 -0400, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate
>

> That just makes more rightwing hot air, you dumb cocksucker.

Wouldn't the leftwing get equal time? Are they afraid of something?

Larry Hewitt

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 7:58:46 AM3/20/07

to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.20....@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...

The scientists have had the debate already.

The decision went to the global warming theory.

Why bother again?

Larry

Lloyd

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 9:31:50 AM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 12:40 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate
>
> Al Gore has been challenged to an internationally televised debate on
> "climate change" by Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to Prime
> Minister Margaret Thatcher during her leadership of the United Kingdom.
>
> In a formal press release from the Center for Science and Public Policy,

So now right-wing lobbying groups pass for science? That's all you've
got?

> Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he
> terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head,
> nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on
> climate is not dangerous."
>
> Monckton said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed
> science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is a foofaraw
> of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent
> schoolchildren worldwide."
>

So NASA, NOAA, EPA, AGU, NAS, and AAAS are all lying?

> Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head-to-head on the science,
> politics, and religion of global warming in pages of the London Sunday
> Telegraph last November.
>
> As reported by NewsMax in November 2006, Monckton challenged a U.N. report

Well, if you want lies, you're quoting the right source -- NewsMax
indeed.

> on climate change as "hysteria" over manmade global warming that distorts
> the truth.
>
> A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that
> temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in
> the Sunday Telegraph.
>

Lie.

> "But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period.
> It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years .
> . .

Lie.

>
> "Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real,
> global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.
>

Then cite them.

> "Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there.
> There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There
> was little ice at the North Pole - a Chinese naval squadron sailed right
> around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."
>
> Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the
> past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.
>
> In his most recent challenge to Gore, Monckton calls on the former vice
> president to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that
> could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor.
>
> "If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our
> time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should
> welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide
> audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious,
> science-based challenge."
>
> © NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
>

Because heaven forbid somebody distorts their distortions!

Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 10:00:32 AM3/20/07

to

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

CB

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 10:32:39 AM3/20/07

to

"Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds" <Exxon.RI...@ecovilliage.us>
wrote in message
news:1174366546.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

A "Dimi-god"? That sounds like Gore, yup.

A dimi-god believes "there's no higher ruling authority" other than his own

Thie name be AlGore

> http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
> Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
> Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
> Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

...
Should the United States seek so-called "energy independence" in an illusive
effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the
economy? Or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement,
seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy?

Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater
international engagement. We are compelled by the situation.

Such a global approach is important to achieving greater U.S. energy
security, and it is also the key to achieving greater economic and
environmental progress.
...
Meeting this tremendous demand requires an enormous industry, the sheer
scale of which escapes most (dumb-ass's like you) people. Each day,
consumers worldwide use over 230 million barrels of energy, measured in oil
equivalent, from all sources. Oil alone is consumed at a rate of 40,000
gallons a second.
--Remarks by Rex W. Tillerson
Chairman and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Council on Foreign Relations Annual Corporate Conference
March 9, 2007
...
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/SpchsIntvws/Corp_NR_SpchIntrvw_RWT_030907_2.asp

What Eco-Constrictionists like you are trying to do is to isolate America
and cut off her Energy sources. A plot to have America fall.

You and AlGore are fools

funk420

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 10:42:18 AM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 3:32 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> "Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds" <Exxon.RICO.Fra...@ecovilliage.us>
> wrote in messagenews:1174366546.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> >http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tob...

> > Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
> > Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
> > Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
>
> ...
> Should the United States seek so-called "energy independence" in an illusive
> effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the
> economy? Or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement,
> seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy?
>
> Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater
> international engagement. We are compelled by the situation.

The Nation's fathers, on the other hand, thought we should "avoid
entangling alliances". But that was back when people called us the
land of the free, and the constitution held sway.

>
> Such a global approach is important to achieving greater U.S. energy
> security, and it is also the key to achieving greater economic and
> environmental progress.
> ...
> Meeting this tremendous demand requires an enormous industry, the sheer
> scale of which escapes most (dumb-ass's like you) people. Each day,
> consumers worldwide use over 230 million barrels of energy, measured in oil
> equivalent, from all sources. Oil alone is consumed at a rate of 40,000
> gallons a second.
> --Remarks by Rex W. Tillerson
> Chairman and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
> Council on Foreign Relations Annual Corporate Conference
> March 9, 2007

> ...http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/SpchsIntvws/Corp_NR_Spch...

>
> What Eco-Constrictionists like you are trying to do is to isolate America
> and cut off her Energy sources. A plot to have America fall.
>
>

There may be some who wish that, and certainly we need to watch out
for that. Others might just be pointing out that if you want to visit
a glacier, you'd better do it soon. Also, avoid investing in seacoast
real estate.

CB

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 10:46:28 AM3/20/07

to

"Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade" <Exxons.C...@Exxon-Turds.info>
wrote in message news:1174399232....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

...

Should the United States seek so-called "energy independence" in an illusive
effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the
economy? Or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement,
seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy?

Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater
international engagement. We are compelled by the situation.

Such a global approach is important to achieving greater U.S. energy

security, and it is also the key to achieving greater economic and
environmental progress.
...
Meeting this tremendous demand requires an enormous industry, the sheer

scale of which escapes most (dumb-ass Libs) people. Each day,

consumers worldwide use over 230 million barrels of energy, measured in oil
equivalent, from all sources. Oil alone is consumed at a rate of 40,000
gallons a second.
--Remarks by Rex W. Tillerson
Chairman and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Council on Foreign Relations Annual Corporate Conference
March 9, 2007
...

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/SpchsIntvws/Corp_NR_SpchIntrvw_RWT_030907_2.asp

CB

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 10:50:12 AM3/20/07

to

"funk420" <fun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174401738.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

While China and Russia expand all over the world, their useful idiots play
politics with America's future Energy needs. To what result? Please answer.

Exxon Liars & Thieves

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 11:04:59 AM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 6:50 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Message has been deleted

kings...@hotmail.com

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 11:27:12 AM3/20/07

to

here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
excuse to disprove global warming.

December in Canada--- At the event about Global warming.

300 scientists---
"Studies have proven that the climate has risin on a small average
from 1900 to present day. Lab studies have concluded that we as a
human race are producing more C02 and other greenhouse gasses at a
rate faster than the natural enviroment can break them down. Currently
7% of the atmosphere is made up C02 and if things don't curb that
percentage will rise and will never go back down. Results from this
climate change will result in more severe weather and unpredictability
on extreme levels that makes Katrina look like a tropical storm:

the 1-2 douchebags from exxon---

"Look outside, It's cold! there's no global warmin.. Proof that it's
cold in the winter proves that there is no global warming"

^meanwhile as Canada experiances it's first snowless winter that
doesn't drop below 34*.

CB

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 11:41:45 AM3/20/07

to

<kings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174404432.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>
> here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
> studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
> excuse to disprove global warming.
>

Tell it to the Chinese and Russians, they'd laugh you right off your soapbox

Commies and their Useful Idiots set fire to America's Energy needs while
expanding their own

The Chinese are making deals all around the world to secure their needs

--
CB
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans..."
--Bill Clinton

...or their Energy needs?

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
--Senator Hillary Clinton 2004
Karl Marx Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848

...for the good of the Commies who expand their Energy needs

Exxon Liars & Thieves

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:07:59 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 7:41 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> <kingssm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:1174404432.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
> > studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
> > excuse to disprove global warming.
>
> Tell it to the Chinese and Russians, they'd laugh you right off your soapbox
>
> Commies and their Useful Idiots set fire to America's Energy needs while
> expanding their own
>
> The Chinese are making deals all around the world to secure their needs
>
> --
> CB
> "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
> Americans..."
> --Bill Clinton
>
> ...or their Energy needs?
>

> ...for the good of the Commies who expand their Energy needs

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

CB

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:19:00 PM3/20/07

to

"Exxon Liars & Thieves" <Exxon.Liars...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
message news:1174406879....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

?????

chico

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 1:28:56 PM3/20/07

to

kings...@hotmail.com wrote:

> here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
> studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
> excuse to disprove global warming.

Two quick points. First, Galileo had a greater mass (no pun) of critics
than scientists who accept money from whatever source you disapprove
of. He was right, they were wrong. Same with Copernicus.

Science is NOT a matter of consensus. Those who rely on this argument --
as Al Gore himself does every chance he gets -- are both committing a
logical fallacy (e.g., appealing to authority and popularity, among
others) and demonstrating a lack of familiarity with the scientific
method.

Second, there are some things that those who believe (and it is at this
point, whether it's an educated belief or much less than that) humans
*are* responsible for global warming haven't adequately addressed to
the satisfaction of many people who remain unconvinced: concurrent
warming on other planets, earth's history of ice ages and warming
periods (pre-human warming periods), etc. A lot of the skepticism from
both scientists and lay people doesn't come at the expense of
disbelieving the planet is warming -- rather whether human activities
are responsible (to whatever degree). These people aren't trying to
"disprove" global warming, they want more evidence that humans are
responsible and that there need to be political changes (funny how the
policy changes are all left wing in nature) to modify behaviors. Or
even if changes will have any effect on the warming trends.

One despicable thing I've noted in this whole debate is that those who
assign all the blame to human activity are the first to call for
silencing critics rather than addressing their doubts and valid
questions. Al Gore has done this repeatedly by dismissing those who've
dismantled some of his claims as flat earthers or, more recently,
conspiracy nuts who think the moon landing was staged (even though some
of them worked on it, go figure). Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel
has openly called for skeptics to be de-certified, which would
effectively kill their careers.

Instead of engaging in debate, they only want to silence their critics.
This is unhealthy enough in a democracy, but it isn't conducive at all
to science. That's the same thing Copernicus and Galileo had to deal
with: dogma over science and discovery. Science doesn't require
shibboleths or dogma -- it's above both. The issue of global warming
should be settled by science, not by politicians or defenders of the
faith.

<snip>

Night of the Living Crackpots

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:33:18 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 8:19 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> "Exxon Liars & Thieves" <Exxon.Liars.and.Thie...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
> messagenews:1174406879....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 7:41 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >> <kingssm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1174404432.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
> >> > studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
> >> > excuse to disprove global warming.
>
> >> Tell it to the Chinese and Russians, they'd laugh you right off your
> >> soapbox
>
> >> Commies and their Useful Idiots set fire to America's Energy needs while
> >> expanding their own
>
> >> The Chinese are making deals all around the world to secure their needs
>
> >> --
> >> CB
> >> "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
> >> Americans..."
> >> --Bill Clinton
>
> >> ...or their Energy needs?
>
> >> ...for the good of the Commies who expand their Energy needs
>

> >http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tob...

> > Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
> > Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
> > Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
>
> ?????

I said:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

Got it now? Read it twice if you need to.

Bill Ward

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 1:03:09 PM3/20/07

to

Content free. Cheerleader.

Crackpot Zombie Hordes

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 1:10:58 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 9:03 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > Because heaven forbid somebody distorts their distortions!
>
> Content free. Cheerleader.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Bill Ward

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 2:24:29 PM3/20/07

to

Nice post. Thanks.

Some people seem to think science is not only done by voting, but that
it's a voice vote.

Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 2:36:51 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 10:24 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > Instead of engaging in debate, they only want to silence their critics.
> > This is unhealthy enough in a democracy, but it isn't conducive at all to
> > science.
>

> Nice post. Thanks.
>
> Some people seem to think science is not only done by voting, but that
> it's a voice vote.

Some people think only the ones with the most money should get any
votes.

pearl

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 2:55:26 PM3/20/07

to

"Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder" <Exxon.RI...@ecovilliage.us> wrote in message
news:1174415810....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

'March 20, 2007

Material Shows Weakening of Climate Reports

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html

WASHINGTON, March 19 - A House committee released documents
Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House
official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government
climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming
or play down evidence of such a role.

In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
the official, Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the
changes he had made in government reports over several years. Mr. Cooney
said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and
reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the
National Academy of Sciences in 2001.

They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the
former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Before joining the White House, he was the "climate team leader" for the
American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on
the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation
was not related to the disclosures.

Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases
for the oil industry had had no bearing on his actions once he joined the
White House. "When I came to the White House," he testified, "my sole
loyalties were to the president and his administration."

Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his
editing and recommendations on what he had seen in good faith as the
"most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge."

Mr. Cooney was defended by James L. Connaughton, chairman of the
environmental council and his former boss.

The hearing was part of an investigation, begun under the committee's
Republican chairman last year, into accusations of political interference
in climate science by the Bush administration.It became a heated and
largely partisan tug of war over the appropriate role of scientists and
political appointees in framing how the government conveys information
on global warming.

The hearing also produced the first sworn statements from George C.
Deutsch III, who moved in 2005 from the Bush re-election campaign to
public affairs jobs at NASA. There he warned career press officers to
exert more control over James E. Hansen, the top climate expert at the
space agency.

Testifying at the hearing, Dr. Hansen said editing like that of Mr. Cooney
and efforts to limit scientists' access to the news media and the public
amounted to censorship and muddied the public debate over a pressing
environmental issue. "If public affairs offices are left under the control
of political appointees," he said, "it seems to me that inherently they
become offices of propaganda."

Republicans criticized Dr. Hansen for what they described as taking
political stances, for spending increasing amounts of time on public
speaking and for accepting a $250,000 Heinz Award for environmental
achievement from the Heinz Family Philanthropies, run by Teresa Heinz
Kerry, the wife of Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, proposed that Dr.
Hansen, by complaining about efforts to present two sides on global
warming research, had become an advocate for limiting the debate.

Dr. Hansen replied, "What I'm an advocate for is the scientific method."

Mr. Deutsch said his warnings to other NASA press officials about Dr.
Hansen's statements and news media access were meant to convey a
"level of frustration among my higher-ups at NASA."

Mr. Deutsch resigned last year after it was disclosed that he had never
graduated from Texas A&M University, as his résumé on file at NASA
said. He has since completed work for the degree, he said Monday.

Democrats focused on fresh details that committee staff members had
compiled showing how Mr. Cooney made hundreds of changes to
government climate research plans and reports to Congress on climate
that raised a sense of uncertainty about the science.

The documents "appear to portray a systematic White House effort to
minimize the significance of climate change," said a memorandum circulated
by the Democrats under the committee chairman, Representative Henry A.
Waxman of California.

Server 13

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 3:11:19 PM3/20/07

to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.20....@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...

Wrong.

Server 13

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 3:13:12 PM3/20/07

to

"chico" <n...@friggin.way> wrote in message
news:46000bcc$0$18845$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> kings...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
>> studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
>> excuse to disprove global warming.
>
> Two quick points. First, Galileo had a greater mass (no pun) of critics
> than scientists who accept money from whatever source you disapprove
> of. He was right, they were wrong. Same with Copernicus.
>
> Science is NOT a matter of consensus. Those who rely on this argument --
> as Al Gore himself does every chance he gets -- are both committing a
> logical fallacy (e.g., appealing to authority and popularity, among
> others) and demonstrating a lack of familiarity with the scientific
> method.

No. You see, climate scientists are experts, not critics.

Message has been deleted

Bill Ward

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:02:59 PM3/20/07

to

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:55:26 +0000, pearl wrote:

> "Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder"
> <Exxon.RI...@ecovilliage.us> wrote in message
> news:1174415810....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 20, 10:24 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Instead of engaging in debate, they only want to silence their
>> > > critics. This is unhealthy enough in a democracy, but it isn't
>> > > conducive at all to science.
>> >
>> > Nice post. Thanks.
>> >
>> > Some people seem to think science is not only done by voting, but that
>> > it's a voice vote.
>>
>> Some people think only the ones with the most money should get any
>> votes.

While others give them our money to buy their votes. But you're off into
politics, not science. Evidence, not votes, counts in science.

Noticibly absent were any instances of the specific wording changes that
were made. It's political innuendo, not science.

Bill Ward

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:37:14 PM3/20/07

to

If you're not a critic, you're not a scientist.

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:39:13 PM3/20/07

to

On 20 Mar 2007 "Hanging Exxon's wrote;

>Some people think only the ones with the most money should get any
>votes.
>
>http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
>Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
>Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
>Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

Ok, after seeing 97,000 spam floods by you, maybe
you can share the reason for your perverted dislike of an
oil company name that I only see in your messages.

Joe Fischer

Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:42:43 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 1:02 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:55:26 +0000, pearl wrote:
> > "Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder"

> > <Exxon.RICO.Fra...@ecovilliage.us> wrote in message

> >news:1174415810....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Mar 20, 10:24 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Instead of engaging in debate, they only want to silence their
> >> > > critics. This is unhealthy enough in a democracy, but it isn't
> >> > > conducive at all to science.
>
> >> > Nice post. Thanks.
>
> >> > Some people seem to think science is not only done by voting, but that
> >> > it's a voice vote.
>
> >> Some people think only the ones with the most money should get any
> >> votes.
>
> While others give them our money to buy their votes. But you're off into
> politics, not science. Evidence, not votes, counts in science.
>
>
>
>
>

> >>http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tob...

Read the transcripts, crackpot.

Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:46:23 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 1:37 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:13:12 -0500, Server 13 wrote:
>
> > "chico" <n...@friggin.way> wrote in message
> >news:46000bcc$0$18845$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> >> kingssm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
> >>> studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
> >>> excuse to disprove global warming.
>
> >> Two quick points. First, Galileo had a greater mass (no pun) of critics
> >> than scientists who accept money from whatever source you disapprove of.
> >> He was right, they were wrong. Same with Copernicus.
>
> >> Science is NOT a matter of consensus. Those who rely on this argument --
> >> as Al Gore himself does every chance he gets -- are both committing a
> >> logical fallacy (e.g., appealing to authority and popularity, among
> >> others) and demonstrating a lack of familiarity with the scientific
> >> method.
>
> > No. You see, climate scientists are experts, not critics.
>
> If you're not a critic, you're not a scientist.

Crackpot Bill Ward in a Nuts hell, ignore.

When a thing is demonstrated to a learned man's satisfaction he ceases
to criticize it. But people like you need to keep criticizing the
roundness of the Earth and the Origins of Species by incremental
divergence of evolution over geological periods of time. Criticism is
only a pure virtue to crackpots.

Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:56:15 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 1:39 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2007 "Hanging Exxon's wrote;
>
> >Some people think only the ones with the most money should get any
> >votes.
>

> >http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tob...

> >Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
> >Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
> >Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
>
> Ok, after seeing 97,000 spam floods by you, maybe
> you can share the reason for your perverted dislike of an
> oil company name that I only see in your messages.
>
> Joe Fischer

Never liked crooks. Exxon has a history. Read it. Crooked from day 1.

http://www.history.rochester.edu/fuels/tarbell/MAIN.HTM
THE HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
Journalist Ida Tarbell's most famous work was this muckraking account
of Rockefeller's oil empire, published in 1904. Full-text reprint of
the book.

http://www.us-highways.com/sohist.htm
A History of the Standard Oil Company
You need a timeline of Standard's history to understand what happened
to them. 1868: Standard Oil Company (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is
organized. ...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007GU27S/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The I.G. Farben and Standard Oil international cartel of World War II
by Kenneth Fossey
Unknown Binding
ASIN: B0007GU27S
Availability: Out of Print--Limited Availability

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679438084/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Titan : The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
by Ron Chernow
Hardcover: 800 pages
Publisher: Random House; 1st ed edition (May 5, 1998)
ISBN: 0679438084

John D. Rockefeller's secret weapon
by Albert H. Z Carr
Hardcover: 383 pages
Publisher: McGraw-Hill; [1st ed.] edition (1962)
ASIN: B0006AXRJK

Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon : Nelson Rockefeller and
Evangelism in the Age of Oil
by Gerard Colby, Charlotte Dennett, Charlott Dennett
Hardcover: 960 pages
Publisher: Harpercollins; 1st ed edition (May 1, 1995)
ISBN: 0060167645

War Is a Racket: The Anti-War Classic by America's Most Decorated
General, Two Other Anti=Interventionist Tracts, and Photographs from
the Horror of It
by Smedley D. Butler, Adam Parfrey
Paperback: 66 pages
Publisher: Feral House; Reprint edition (April, 2003)
ISBN: 0922915865

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006C589A/qid=1108917122/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Remington Arms in American history
by Alden Hatch
Unknown Binding: 364 pages
ASIN: B0006C589A

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0874802113/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Buried unsung: Louis Tikas and the Ludlow Massacre (The University of
Utah publications in the American West)
by Zeese Papanikolas
Hardcover: 331 pages
Publisher: University of Utah Press (1982)
ISBN: 0874802113

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0395136490/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The Great Coalfield War
by George S McGovern
Unknown Binding: 383 pages
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin (1972)
ISBN: 0395136490

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007DLQYY/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,: A portrait
by Raymond Blaine Fosdick
Hardcover: 477 pages
Publisher: Harper; [1st ed.] edition (1956)
ASIN: B0007DLQYY

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576752607/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of
Democracy
by Ted Nace
Hardcover: 300 pages
Publisher: Berrett-Koehler Publishers (July, 2003)
ISBN: 1576752607

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:56:38 PM3/20/07

to

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote:

> Wrong.

Wight.

Joe Fischer

funk420

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 6:43:05 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 3:50 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> "funk420" <funk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

What kind of politics are being played with our future energy needs?
The people playing these politics here, as you put it, are not
russians or chinese. They are oil executives / executive branch
members / etc. How many billions of barrels of oil have been burned
to occupy Iraq? Where did the money go?

I'm trying to answer, but do you want to talk about the price of
energy, or would you rather talk about climate & ecology? It is 100%
in the interest of the citizenry of the US on a whole to pursue
efficiency and sustainability. However, it is in the short term
interest of a few extremely wealthy and short-sighted citizens that we
go on being inefficient and unsustainable.

BTW, what do you mean by china and russia "expanding all over the
world"?? Economically perhaps?

Cheers -

CB

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 12:30:01 AM3/21/07

to

"funk420" <fun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174430585.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

The Left insist America slow down, put a 'governor on Energy consumption so
our carbon footprint is reduced. This to slow down America for the purpose
of economic slump. The Left has threatened the Energy industry with windfall
taxes but yet government gets the lions share from taxes on gas.

Libs won't vote to open up ANWR, they won't allow drilling in the gulf, Hell
Kennedy won't allow windmills 30 miles offshore, out of site.

Libs want America to at the mercy of OPEC and I hear the Arabs have even
approached Nancy Pelosi to help elect a Dim Prez.

You're damn right it'a all about politics!

> The people playing these politics here, as you put it, are not
> russians or chinese. They are oil executives / executive branch
> members / etc. How many billions of barrels of oil have been burned
> to occupy Iraq? Where did the money go?

Fuel is a product the world needs. Due to higher demand, the price goes up.

Dims have refused exploration, new drilling and even restricted new
refineries from being constructed.

The government gets .27 cents a gallon where the producers only get up to
.08 cents a gallon. So you tell me who's the F'ing greedy one?

>
> I'm trying to answer, but do you want to talk about the price of
> energy, or would you rather talk about climate & ecology? It is 100%
> in the interest of the citizenry of the US on a whole to pursue
> efficiency and sustainability.

No shit but your Leftist buddies want to force constriction on America by
driving up the cost. "No ANWR any time!" That's their answer. The result has
been an increase in price.

You think the Chinese or Russians give a F__K about energy reduction or
pleasing the eco-whackos? The Chinese government is investing heavily in
Venezuela, and Cuba to make sure their Energy needs are met. All the while
Dims prevent America from doing the same. Their sabotaging America

However, it is in the short term
> interest of a few extremely wealthy and short-sighted citizens that we
> go on being inefficient and unsustainable.
>
> BTW, what do you mean by china and russia "expanding all over the
> world"?? Economically perhaps?

No dummy, their investing in oil producing countries to secure their peoples
needs, we are not.

Got it now or can't you see past your hatred for big oil and too America's
future Energy needs?

CB

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 12:43:45 AM3/21/07

to

<Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:3ji003h6r2f7l4cub...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:41:45 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><kings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1174404432.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> here's a debate of 300 scientists looking for truth in independent
>>> studies vs 1 or 2 exxon mobile paid scientists who's looking for any
>>> excuse to disprove global warming.
>>>
>>
>>Tell it to the Chinese and Russians, they'd laugh you right off your
>>soapbox
>>
>> Commies and their Useful Idiots set fire to America's Energy needs while
>>expanding their own
>

> You fucking dingbat

Nigger, while the Chinese and Russians are investing in Venezuelan oil and
helping Cuba develop their oil drilling capacity, your Leftist Congressmen
are preventing America from doing the same.

Leftists are sabotaging America's future Energy needs. We'll be in Iraq
forever because of you're useful idiots. We'll have to because it will be
our only major source for oil!

Go ahead, say something stupid.

>
> THEY have more people than we do
>
> China is still far behind industrially

Not for long, their economy 'is' growing at 10%, next year more, it's
exponential

>
> Are you now saying that THEY, as human beings, don't
> have the right to care for THEIR people?

Dims thing America has not right to secure their Energy needs,
conventionally and domestically.

While AlGore the Dimi-god lies about global warming and won't debate the
issue, Congress restricts 'big oil' from exploring, drilling and bringing to
market new sources of Energy.

China laughs at useful idiots like you.
--
CB
What put's Algore in his lockbox?
http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Global%20Warming%20Problem.gif

2006 power bill
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.03.04.ConspicConsump-X.gif

Global warming on Mars
In its ninth year in orbit around Mars, NASA's Mars Global Surveyor has made
a number of surprising discoveries. For three Mars summers in a row,
deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the
previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress. Apparently,
President Bush's environmental policies are so destructive that they are
causing global warming throughout the solar system.
--Harry Dope

Rich Travsky

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 2:03:25 AM3/21/07

to

Rich Travsky

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 2:04:49 AM3/21/07

to

CB wrote:
> "funk420" <fun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> > On Mar 20, 3:50 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >> "funk420" <funk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1174401738.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Mar 20, 3:32 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds"
> >> >> <Exxon.RICO.Fra...@ecovilliage.us>
> >> >> wrote in
> >>

Lie. Efficiency and alternative sources will reduce the carbon footprint
with no slowdown.

Message has been deleted

CB

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 7:57:14 AM3/21/07

to

<Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:dsl103981mupbmn0k...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:30:01 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Libs won't vote to open up ANWR, they won't allow drilling in the gulf,
>>Hell
>>Kennedy won't allow windmills 30 miles offshore, out of site.
>

> You stupid cocksucker

Heh...I never sucked a cock in my life where we all know you have

>
> The America people own the land, rights, and oil in
> ANWR
>
> What your lying sack of shit want's to do is to sell
> OUR oil and gas rights for pennies on the dollar----so
> they can reap huge profits selling it back to
> US---while we subsidize them with our tax dollars.
>
> When they destroy the Wilderness like the exon-Valdez
> did, WE pay for it.
>
> The Multinational Oil Companies Are behind in lease
> payments, depletion payments, and STILL get BILLIONS in
> tax breaks from Us.

All the while China grows stronger, her economy is growing and needs ever
more fuel. No politics in China's plans to secure Energy for the future.

And the band plays on while America's Energy needs are constricted by the
Left.

CB

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 8:14:07 AM3/21/07

to

"chico" <n...@friggin.way> wrote in message
news:46000bcc$0$18845$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

In the mean time the Chinese high at their stupid useful idiots who restrict
America's oil producers from securing future needs and they them selves
invest heavily in oil production just 90 off Florida.

The issue should be about Energy security, not about Dimi-gods and their
narcissistic Humanism.

funk420

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 9:52:17 AM3/21/07

to

Who is this "Left" you speak of? You mean the Democrats, the Neocons,
the Chinese, or what?

>
> Libs won't vote to open up ANWR, they won't allow drilling in the gulf, Hell
> Kennedy won't allow windmills 30 miles offshore, out of site.
>

OK, ignoring your use of slanderous terms like "libs" or "right
wingers" from here on out. The issue with ANWR is are we going to
pursue a capitalist free market approach or is the govt. going to give
this property away to multi-billionaires. Bush and the commies want
to give it away like the rest of the US treasury of course.

> Libs want America to at the mercy of OPEC and I hear the Arabs have even
> approached Nancy Pelosi to help elect a Dim Prez.
>

Yeah, knock that straw man around a bit. Come now, who wants to be at
the mercy of OPEC? Nobody.

> You're damn right it'a all about politics!
>
> > The people playing these politics here, as you put it, are not
> > russians or chinese. They are oil executives / executive branch
> > members / etc. How many billions of barrels of oil have been burned
> > to occupy Iraq? Where did the money go?
>
> Fuel is a product the world needs. Due to higher demand, the price goes up.
>
> Dims have refused exploration, new drilling and even restricted new
> refineries from being constructed.
>
> The government gets .27 cents a gallon where the producers only get up to
> .08 cents a gallon. So you tell me who's the F'ing greedy one?
>

That would be, Mr. Dick "Dick" Cheney the Dim.

>
> > I'm trying to answer, but do you want to talk about the price of
> > energy, or would you rather talk about climate & ecology? It is 100%
> > in the interest of the citizenry of the US on a whole to pursue
> > efficiency and sustainability.
>
> No shit but your Leftist buddies want to force constriction on America by
> driving up the cost. "No ANWR any time!" That's their answer. The result has
> been an increase in price.
>

LOL. A few reasons for the price increase that are orders of
magnitude more important:
1 - treasury rampantly printing money in biggest govt. expansion of
our lifetime
2 - huge demand due to giant useless war designed to take our money
3 - no more giant oil discoveries as we are near peak planetary
production of primary reserves

> You think the Chinese or Russians give a F__K about energy reduction or
> pleasing the eco-whackos? The Chinese government is investing heavily in
> Venezuela, and Cuba to make sure their Energy needs are met. All the while
> Dims prevent America from doing the same. Their sabotaging America
>

Hmm... you are prevented from investing heavily in Venezuela and Cuba
by .. the Dims? Here we finally agree. We should be able to invest
in those countries, and every administration for the last 50 years has
been Dim for not allowing it.

> However, it is in the short term
>
> > interest of a few extremely wealthy and short-sighted citizens that we
> > go on being inefficient and unsustainable.
>
> > BTW, what do you mean by china and russia "expanding all over the
> > world"?? Economically perhaps?
>
> No dummy, their investing in oil producing countries to secure their peoples
> needs, we are not.
>

Oil is a commodity, it can be purchased. Sound fiscal policies imply
sound energy policies.

> Got it now or can't you see past your hatred for big oil and too America's
> future Energy needs?

I'm a fan of the free market. Old school conservative I guess. Sorry
to offend you.

Message has been deleted

CB

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 12:58:45 AM3/22/07

to

<Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:0613035gt07rgtmaf...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:14:07 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>The issue should be about Energy security, not about Dimi-gods and their
>>narcissistic Humanism.
>

> That's your stupid babbling again, you dumb cocksucker

Projecting your homo perversion onto others just reinforces your own
dysfuctional behavior, low life

>
> You merely string words together without any rational
> meaning or concept to them

You really have no intellectual capacity to reason. No wonder why you're
just a burger flipper.

>
> We can be secure in "energy security" by not being
> dependent on it so much.

Fossil fuel works, our industrial complex runs on it. Fantasizing
alternative fuels will save us from our selves is an illusion born in
fascism. You leftists think forcing America to conserve and scheming to
prevent exploitation of existing technologies will be the catalyst for "the
mother of invention". In reality it drives up the cost of Energy and allows
China to gain as world leader.

I know in your delusional mind you think it would be great 'when' china is
equal to America but it won't. Hu Jintao doesn't have equality in mind,
China's leaders want to dominate the world as does Putin. The way to that
dominance 'is' through Energy. China doesn't value ecology or pollution as
does America. While politics is played with America's Energy security, China
expands its Energy sources.

>
> We're spoiled, overly egocentric and arrogant.

So you'd like to see China and Russia dominate us.

>
> Why is it okay for US to be that way---but no one else?

China and Russia are free to grow, expand their Energy sources but the Dim
(witted) Congress is short sited in it's refusal to secure our future Energy
needs.

Try putting the hate aside for a minute and think about the Future of
America. God knows the Left has maneuvered our dependence on foreign sources
of Energy.

I just read in the WSJ that China imposed a windfall tax on their Energy
produces, the same thing Palosi has proposed here.

What do you suppose that would do to domestic investments in Energy and
exploration?

Exxon Liars & Crooks

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 1:26:38 AM3/22/07

to

On Mar 21, 8:58 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:

> Fossil fuel works, our industrial complex runs on it. Fantasizing
> alternative fuels will save us from our selves is an illusion born in
> fascism. You leftists think forcing America to conserve and scheming to
> prevent exploitation of existing technologies will be the catalyst for "the
> mother of invention". In reality it drives up the cost of Energy and allows
> China to gain as world leader.

China is aiming at being a WORLD LEADER in Alternative energy, with
$180,000,000,000 committed, more than all the other countries on Earth
combined. They are going to get the experience in cost-cutting and
efficiency in manufacture and make all the profits from selling it to
an energy-starved world that will pour mountains of gold into Beijing.

You can only watch and cry like a little girl.

> I know in your delusional mind you think it would be great 'when' china is
> equal to America but it won't. Hu Jintao doesn't have equality in mind,
> China's leaders want to dominate the world as does Putin. The way to that
> dominance 'is' through Energy. China doesn't value ecology or pollution as
> does America. While politics is played with America's Energy security, China
> expands its Energy sources.

$180,000,000,000 committed. Your favorite country _____? How much are
you COMMITTED?

> > We're spoiled, overly egocentric and arrogant.
>
> So you'd like to see China and Russia dominate us.

Winner take all. Loser cry like little girls.

> > Why is it okay for US to be that way---but no one else?
>
> China and Russia are free to grow, expand their Energy sources but the Dim
> (witted) Congress is short sited in it's refusal to secure our future Energy
> needs.

Chine is gabling because they don't value human life -- it goes back
to the ruthless conquest by Ghengis Khan or even before. It's in their
genes, or something in the water.

If you want to beat them you have to be much smarter than you are. The
world is not as simple as you make believe it is.

> Try putting the hate aside for a minute and think about the Future of
> America. God knows the Left has maneuvered our dependence on foreign sources
> of Energy.

The left has no power, not today or yesterday. You call anything less
than Heinrich Himmler "the left" without making meaningful
distinctions.

The power has been with the oligarchy for three generations, who
invented the modern corporations as machines of conquest as much as
machines of production. George Bush's great grandfather Samuel made
his workers do 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, but he saw the sunshine
and is known as a famous golfer.

> I just read in the WSJ that China imposed a windfall tax on their Energy
> produces, the same thing Palosi has proposed here.
>
> What do you suppose that would do to domestic investments in Energy and
> exploration?

I think it would make unicorns fly through the skies like olden days.
You worry too much about people who make $1,000 every minute of the
day and even at night while they sleep. You should save a little bit
of your concern for ordinary people, of which you are totally ordinary
and not rich.

Message has been deleted

CB

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 12:27:13 PM3/22/07

to

"Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_an...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
news:1174541198.8...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 21, 8:58 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>> Fossil fuel works, our industrial complex runs on it. Fantasizing
>> alternative fuels will save us from our selves is an illusion born in
>> fascism. You leftists think forcing America to conserve and scheming to
>> prevent exploitation of existing technologies will be the catalyst for
>> "the
>> mother of invention". In reality it drives up the cost of Energy and
>> allows
>> China to gain as world leader.
>
> China is aiming at being a WORLD LEADER in Alternative energy, with
> $180,000,000,000 committed, more than all the other countries on Earth
> combined. They are going to get the experience in cost-cutting and
> efficiency in manufacture and make all the profits from selling it to
> an energy-starved world that will pour mountains of gold into Beijing.
>
> You can only watch and cry like a little girl.

Only because DemocRATs have obstructed America's CAPITALISTS from being all
they could be. The war on the rich (taxation/regulation) has trickled down
to the sucking sound of CAPITALISTS moving operations offshore, slowing the
economy. The Chinese and you laugh while I cry for my country.

>
>
>> I know in your delusional mind you think it would be great 'when' china
>> is
>> equal to America but it won't. Hu Jintao doesn't have equality in mind,
>> China's leaders want to dominate the world as does Putin. The way to that
>> dominance 'is' through Energy. China doesn't value ecology or pollution
>> as
>> does America. While politics is played with America's Energy security,
>> China
>> expands its Energy sources.
>
> $180,000,000,000 committed. Your favorite country _____? How much are
> you COMMITTED?

One man's vote...for CAPITALISM/REPUBLICAN

>
>
>> > We're spoiled, overly egocentric and arrogant.
>>
>> So you'd like to see China and Russia dominate us.
>
> Winner take all. Loser cry like little girls.

What does that mean? Once America is economically weaker than China will
Communism switch from economic war to the sword for the final solution? Will
America be forced to givie up its soverignty and join the EU for safety?

>
>
>> > Why is it okay for US to be that way---but no one else?
>>
>> China and Russia are free to grow, expand their Energy sources but the
>> Dim
>> (witted) Congress is short sited in it's refusal to secure our future
>> Energy
>> needs.
>
> Chine is gabling because they don't value human life -- it goes back
> to the ruthless conquest by Ghengis Khan or even before. It's in their
> genes, or something in the water.

Exactly. China and Russia sell arms to Syria and Iran. Iran and Syria supply
their surrogates, in Hezbollah, el Qaeda and the rest, America is forced to
fight Islamo-fascism for fear of them coming to her shores and Libs fight to
keep America's President down while preventing America from being Energy
independent of OPEC, the perfect storm.

>
> If you want to beat them you have to be much smarter than you are. The
> world is not as simple as you make believe it is.

Heh

>
>> Try putting the hate aside for a minute and think about the Future of
>> America. God knows the Left has maneuvered our dependence on foreign
>> sources
>> of Energy.
>
> The left has no power, not today or yesterday. You call anything less
> than Heinrich Himmler "the left" without making meaningful
> distinctions.

The Left control the DemocRAT Party.

Their party is blind to world events and vote accordingly. Just look at the
factions of the Democrat Party. It's made up of high school drop-outs,
illegal aliens, felons, Secular Humanists who hate God and deviants. There
are a few decent but lost souls who believe with their feelings that the
Right are out to take over the world but in reality their useful idiots for
Islamo-fascists and commies.

>
> The power has been with the oligarchy for three generations, who
> invented the modern corporations as machines of conquest as much as
> machines of production. George Bush's great grandfather Samuel made
> his workers do 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, but he saw the sunshine
> and is known as a famous golfer.

No one makes anyone do anything...unless you live under Communism. In
America people have choices.

If you're advocating 'unions', they're in part responsible for high prices
and over regulation.

>
>
>
>
>> I just read in the WSJ that China imposed a windfall tax on their Energy
>> produces, the same thing Palosi has proposed here.
>>
>> What do you suppose that would do to domestic investments in Energy and
>> exploration?
>
> I think it would make unicorns fly through the skies like olden days.
> You worry too much about people who make $1,000 every minute of the
> day and even at night while they sleep. You should save a little bit
> of your concern for ordinary people, of which you are totally ordinary
> and not rich.

I'm not rich, my boss is and I want him to prosper so I can.

Unlike you I want EXXON-MOBIL to exploit ANWR. This will keep Energy prices
down and allow the Capitalism to grow. The Commies know this and invest in
fossil fuels, Libs know this but scheme to constrict American oil producers
and the part of ignoramuses continue to vote for them.
--
CB
Exactly. China and Russia sell arms to Syria and Iran. Iran and Syria supply
their surrogates, in Hezbollah, el Qaeda and the rest, America is forced to
fight Islamo-fascism for fear of them coming to her shores and Libs fight to
keep America's President down while preventing America from being Energy
independent of OPEC, the perfect storm.

CB

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 12:43:13 PM3/22/07

to

<Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:n98403d4ju6fqk5e5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "CB"

>
>>Projecting your homo perversion onto others just reinforces your own
>>dysfuctional behavior, low life
>

> Nevertheless, it's still BABBLING

>
>>> You merely string words together without any rational
>>> meaning or concept to them
>>
>>You really have no intellectual capacity to reason.
>

> I've reasoned that you babble
>
> What you post makes no sense. It has no facts or
> evidence to support it, just a string of words you've
> heard that "sound good"

>
>>You leftists think forcing America to conserve and scheming to
>>prevent exploitation of existing technologies will be the catalyst for
>>"the
>>mother of invention". In reality it drives up the cost of Energy and
>>allows
>>China to gain as world leader.
>

> See, there you go again. That's BABBLING
>
> It's a string of words that has no predicate or
> underlying evidence, facts, or even logic to it.

>
>>
>>I know in your delusional mind you think it would be great 'when' china is
>>equal to America but it won't.
>

> Has nothing to do with Equality
>
> The Chinese people are HUMANS
>
> You're silly theories and beliefs make an assumption
> that We are more "special" humans that Chinese Humans

Communism vs. Democracy

I know which is better but your perverted mind places equality between them.

>
> You're a fucking Racist

You're a nigger racist

>
>
>>China and Russia are free to grow, expand their Energy sources but the Dim
>>(witted) Congress is short sited in it's refusal to secure our future
>>Energy
>>needs.
>

> If China and Russia are morally equally able to expand
> THEIR energy sources, then why do you presuppose that
> WE are more deserving?

Not more deserving, unable due to Liberals fighting to keep America weak by
constricting our ability to find new sources of oil.

You're the one who seems to 'feel' America is unworthy or undeserving. It's
probably because you hate America for being so racist, right, bigot?

>
>>Try putting the hate aside for a minute and think about the Future of
>>America
>

> You goddamn idiot
>
> You support a lying sack of shit that's killed tens of
> thousands of innocent people, exploited millions, and
> you're whining about US having to show some moral fiber
> and leaderhip in dealing with a PROVEN fact of fossil
> fuel consumption that is killing the planet and
> ruinious of the environment.

I rest my case, you hate America, hate the way she 'pollutes the planet' and
want her to fall, at any cost to our freedom.

>
>>
>>I just read in the WSJ that China imposed a windfall tax on their Energy
>>produces, the same thing Palosi has proposed here.
>

> WHY did they do that you moron?

Because like Liberalism, Communism hates the successful and schemes to steal
it, just like Islamo-fascism seeks to steal what the West has created.

>
>>What do you suppose that would do to domestic investments in Energy and
>>exploration?
>

> I "suppose" it would cut the $100 million dollar
> salaries of the CEO'S of the Oil companies and the
> profits of the rich white wealthy greedy sonsabitches
> who fuck us at the oil pump, Barta

There's that hatred for white people and the sucessful again. Get back to
the grill, low life.

Message has been deleted

Night of the Living Crackpots

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 3:46:28 PM3/22/07

to

On Mar 22, 8:27 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:

> >> > We're spoiled, overly egocentric and arrogant.
>
> >> So you'd like to see China and Russia dominate us.
>
> > Winner take all. Loser cry like little girls.
>
> What does that mean? Once America is economically weaker than China will
> Communism switch from economic war to the sword for the final solution? Will
> America be forced to givie up its soverignty and join the EU for safety?

The US BORROWS MONEY FROM CHINA TO FINANCE THE IRAQ WAR. China is
already stronger than the US with a pile of gold accumulated from
MaoMart shoppers buying cheap imports. They already won that war --
the borrower is weaker than the lender, stupid.

Night of the Living Crackpots

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 3:48:12 PM3/22/07

to

Charly Barta Crackpot. Ignore.

On Mar 22, 8:43 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:

> > You're a fucking Racist
>
> You're a nigger racist

> > You support a lying sack of shit that's killed tens of

George

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 4:07:21 PM3/22/07

to

"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:46020d07$0$19434$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

Clearly, alternative energy sources alone are not going to replace our
current thirst for fossil fuels. No one strategy will work. It will take
not only a combination of alternative energy sources, but drastic
conservation measures as well. And new energy saving technologies will
have to be implimented as well. I would expect that getting rid of all
incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with compact fluorescent will
become necessary (and should have been done a long time ago). In addition,
the huge increase in energy consumption in the US over the past ten years
has been largely attributed to the widespread and increasing use of
extremely energy inefficient home computers. Intel and the other chip
makers are going to have to step up to bat and make these systems much more
energy and heat efficient than they currently are. Also, switching all
these computers over to LCD and plasma monitors from CRT would contribute
to the energy savings. In conclusion, there are a lot of things that can
be done to help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Alternative energy
sources are but one available avenue, but by themselves won't work.
Without conservation, energy efficiency, and reduction in energy usage, we
will never wean ourselves from the yoke of fossil fuel dependence. I mean,
do you really need that electric can opener, or that electric razor?

George

Crackpot Zombie Hordes

unread,

Mar 22, 2007, 4:55:32 PM3/22/07

to

.

CB

unread,

Mar 23, 2007, 1:01:12 AM3/23/07

to

<Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:9kd503t7d89srb0ej...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:27:13 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Only because DemocRATs have obstructed America's CAPITALISTS from being
>>all
>>they could be.
>
>

> You uneducated fuckwit
>
> At one time "america's Capitalist" had NO restrictions

And look how things have reversed them selves. Union, punitive taxes and
redundant taxes/over regulation have driven Capitalists offshore.
Capitalists like Halliburton who took the hateful message you Libs
threatened and moved offshore.

poverty, squalor, sickness, hunger, lynchings,
> beatings, and use of government Against PEOPLE (for
> business profit), segregation, and NO middle class.

Your a broken record, you'd like to go back to the good'ol'days where you
can beat your dead horse...up and down.

Capitalism built America and many got rich. The poor are usually in dire
straits unless like you make a career of poor choice.

Get back to the grill loser, you're scaring the customers
--
CB

CB

unread,

Mar 23, 2007, 1:07:20 AM3/23/07

to

"Night of the Living Crackpots" <Crac...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
message news:1174592788.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

WHAT A SHAME

GOP Adultery Party in '08

unread,

Mar 23, 2007, 1:13:48 AM3/23/07

to

On Mar 22, 9:07 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> "Night of the Living Crackpots" <Crackp...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
> messagenews:1174592788.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

You made America Weaker by not taxing to pay for your war. Instead you
borrowed from the chinks. You did that.

You put Americans in debt to china for generations. The US just
finished paying for the Spanish American War of 1898. It hasn't begun
paying off the paper on WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Cold War, Panama,
Grenada, or two Gulf Wars yet. Most of the budget goes to pay
creditors from old wars, both inside and outside the country holding
IOUs.

WHAT A SHAME you ain't dead.

CB

unread,

Mar 23, 2007, 11:03:11 AM3/23/07

to

"GOP Adultery Party in '08" <Exxon.P...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
message news:1174626828....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 22, 9:07 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>> "Night of the Living Crackpots" <Crackp...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
>> messagenews:1174592788.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 8:27 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > We're spoiled, overly egocentric and arrogant.
>>
>> >> >> So you'd like to see China and Russia dominate us.
>>
>> >> > Winner take all. Loser cry like little girls.
>>
>> >> What does that mean? Once America is economically weaker than China
>> >> will
>> >> Communism switch from economic war to the sword for the final
>> >> solution?
>> >> Will
>> >> America be forced to givie up its soverignty and join the EU for
>> >> safety?
>>
>> > The US BORROWS MONEY FROM CHINA TO FINANCE THE IRAQ WAR. China is
>> > already stronger than the US with a pile of gold accumulated from
>> > MaoMart shoppers buying cheap imports. They already won that war --
>> > the borrower is weaker than the lender, stupid.
>>
>> WHAT A SHAME
>
> You made America Weaker by not taxing to pay for your war. Instead you
> borrowed from the chinks. You did that.

You did this to America, not me. You and your unions, your taxes on
inanimate objects rather than personal income. You did this with punitive
corporate taxes, taxes on Plant Assets, impact fees, licenses and even
friggin 'intangible taxes'!

You Libs take what you didn't earn. You steal what hard working people make
and build over a lifetime.

If not for your greedy Liberal Socialist Congressmen American entrepreneurs
would not have left to set up shop in more accommodating and appreciative
countries.

>
> You put Americans in debt to china for generations.

Eliminate corporate taxes and outlaw unions, the American entrepreneur will
rebound and tax revenues will increase. As it 'is' now, it's far more free
in China (albiet entrepreneurs have to turn over ownership after 10 years)
than in America. Amagine that.

The US just
> finished paying for the Spanish American War of 1898. It hasn't begun
> paying off the paper on WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Cold War, Panama,
> Grenada, or two Gulf Wars yet. Most of the budget goes to pay
> creditors from old wars, both inside and outside the country holding
> IOUs.
>
> WHAT A SHAME you ain't dead.

How subtle, I bet you'wr from New Yorwk, the in'nuh city

>

CB

unread,

Mar 23, 2007, 12:24:13 PM3/23/07

to

<Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:0qd5039rcd49hnfta...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:43:13 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> You're silly theories and beliefs make an assumption
>>> that We are more "special" humans that Chinese Humans
>>
>>Communism vs. Democracy
>>
>>I know which is better but your perverted mind places equality between
>>them.
>

> YOUR perverted, racist "mind" doesn't accept that
> your're condemning HUMANS to squalor and sickness
> because of things THEY cannot alter.

Say what? You're ddddiiillllllluuuuuussssssssssiiiioonaaaall.

The Chinese government suppresses free speech and owns friggin everything.
It outlaws Jesus Christ, the own real advocate for free choice in the free
world.

China is run mush like the mafia, just try to do something on your own.
You'll end up in real squaller, not like some NY slum collecting welfare
watching Oprah

>
>>> You're a fucking Racist
>>
>>You're a nigger racist
>
>

>>> If China and Russia are morally equally able to expand
>>> THEIR energy sources, then why do you presuppose that
>>> WE are more deserving?
>>
>>Not more deserving, unable due to Liberals fighting to keep America weak
>>by
>>constricting our ability to find new sources of oil.
>

> "We" have no problem with "finding more oil" as long as
> the proper fees and taxes are paid----AND the
> environment is not destroyed.

We have that now

>
>
> "We" have no problem until we are required to subsidize
> the millions in CEO salaries and cleanup of messes
> those FORIEGN companies make

That's what freedom is all about, commie. The gov'ment leases the land for
exploitation, it gets a monthly check for the use of the lease. Whining how
much a CEO gets (I too have a problem with dat) is really none of your
bidniz.

>
>>You're the one who seems to 'feel' America is unworthy or undeserving.
>

> No, I don't believe that a FORIEGN oil exec should be
> subsidized by MY tax dollar, or rob MY natural
> resources.

Well then commie, went negotiating leases, maybe the gov'ment could put
"only for domestic use" in duh contract. I don't think a cap on saleries of
the company taking all the 'risk' will go for dat

>
> THe oil THEY find is sold on a WORLD MARKET
>
> It is not sold exclusively to the United states.
>
> Selling us OUR oil and gas at inflated prices is
> morally wrong.

Then change the requirements for lease, Uncle Sam!

>
>>> You goddamn idiot

Have you no shame?

>>>
>>> You support a lying sack of shit that's killed tens of
>>> thousands of innocent people, exploited millions, and
>>> you're whining about US having to show some moral fiber
>>> and leaderhip in dealing with a PROVEN fact of fossil
>>> fuel consumption that is killing the planet and
>>> ruinious of the environment.
>>
>>I rest my case, you hate America,
>

> I hate the LYING sack of shit, coke-addled, brain-dead
> idiot that runs it, you fucking moron.

You do hate America. You hate those that do well, you hate their pay
structure, you want to rob them of their income, you want to tax what they
own. No wonder why so many entrepreneurs go off shore to avoid 'your (bigot)
kind'.

>
>
>>>>I just read in the WSJ that China imposed a windfall tax on their Energy
>>>>produces, the same thing Palosi has proposed here.
>>>
>>> WHY did they do that you moron?
>>
>>Because like Liberalism, Communism hates the successful and schemes to
>>steal
>>it, just like Islamo-fascism seeks to steal what the West has created.
>

> You uneducated idiot
>
> The Oil and Gas Belongs to Americans

Then the gov'ment screwed them selves and us Americans. Gov'ment 'is' bad at
negotiations

>
> The profits on OUR oil and gas, PLUS the $30 Billion in
> tax breaks go to FORIEGN companies and the CEO'S that
> run them

It's all in the contracts. You whine no far after the deal has been struck.
I 'bet' you'd whine "no far" in Las Vegas and demand a 'do-over' and a
refund.

>
>>>>What do you suppose that would do to domestic investments in Energy and
>>>>exploration?
>>>
>>> I "suppose" it would cut the $100 million dollar
>>> salaries of the CEO'S of the Oil companies and the
>>> profits of the rich white wealthy greedy sonsabitches
>>> who fuck us at the oil pump, Barta
>>
>>There's that hatred for white people and the sucessful again. Get back to
>>the grill, low life.
>

> So "White people", in your eyes are smarter, better,
> and/or more deserving of benefits of America?

You're the racist, you bigot, your words just proved it!

CB

Gary Rosell/Cl...@Knicklas.com: I "suppose" it would cut the $100 million

dollar salaries of the CEO'S of the Oil companies and the profits of the
rich white wealthy greedy sonsabitches who fuck us at the oil pump, Barta

CB: There's that hatred for white people and the sucessful again. Get back

to the grill, low life.

Gary Rosell/Cl...@Knicklas.com: So "White people", in your eyes are smarter,
better,
and/or more deserving of benefits of America?

CB:
You're the racist, you bigot, your words just proved it!

>
>

CB

unread,

Mar 23, 2007, 12:46:44 PM3/23/07

to

"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote in message
news:IlBMh.21489$Wc....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

You mean Energy constriction then attrition by oil companies going else
where, where people appreciate their services.

And new energy saving technologies will
> have to be implimented as well. I would expect that getting rid of all
> incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with compact fluorescent will
> become necessary

We did that years ago at my house, along with shower cut-offs for shaving in
duh show'wuh

(and should have been done a long time ago). In addition,
> the huge increase in energy consumption in the US over the past ten years
> has been largely attributed to the widespread and increasing use of
> extremely energy inefficient home computers. Intel and the other chip
> makers are going to have to step up to bat and make these systems much
> more energy and heat efficient than they currently are.

I must have 50 glowing lights all around my office space, the kitchen has
about 10 and the bedroom, 3. All the LED lights on electronic gadgets add up
and unnecessary.

Also, switching all
> these computers over to LCD and plasma monitors from CRT would contribute
> to the energy savings. In conclusion, there are a lot of things that can
> be done to help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Alternative energy
> sources are but one available avenue, but by themselves won't work.

Forcing Energy constriction seems to be working. Fuel prices are always
going up because of world demand, lack of refining capacity and stupid
Liberalism's Shangri=La illusion of a fossil free world.

> Without conservation, energy efficiency, and reduction in energy usage, we
> will never wean ourselves from the yoke of fossil fuel dependence. I mean,
> do you really need that electric can opener, or that electric razor?

I have neither but appreciate what your saying. But until alternitive fuels
are cheaper than fossil, fossil will continue to be the way to go.

It's only due to Liberal Socialists that America finds its self at the
mercies of Babylonian thugs

Message has been deleted

Rich Travsky

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 1:00:43 AM3/25/07

to

George wrote:
> "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message

> > <Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message

> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:14:07 -0400, "CB"
> >> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:

> >> [...]

>
> Clearly, alternative energy sources alone are not going to replace our
> current thirst for fossil fuels. No one strategy will work. It will take
> not only a combination of alternative energy sources, but drastic
> conservation measures as well. And new energy saving technologies will
> have to be implimented as well. I would expect that getting rid of all

Bravo.

> incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with compact fluorescent will
> become necessary (and should have been done a long time ago). In addition,

Australia and the EU are headed that way and so is the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14light.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A coalition of industrialists, environmentalists and energy specialists is
banding together to try to eliminate the incandescent light bulb in about 10
years.

In an agreement to be announced Wednesday, the coalition members, including
Philips Lighting, the largest manufacturer; the Natural Resources Defense
Council; and two efficiency organizations, are pledging to press for efficiency
standards at the local, state and federal levels. The standards would phase out
the ordinary screw-in bulb, technology that arose around the time of the
telegraph and the steam locomotive, and replace it with compact fluorescents,
light-emitting diodes, halogen devices and other technologies that may emerge.
...
The agreement is a compromise among the participants. Some favored an outright
ban on incandescent bulbs, like the one Australia said last month it would seek
by 2009 or 2010. Philips, a unit of Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands,
has pledged with others doing business in Europe to seek a shift to more
efficient lighting there, too.
...

Rich Travsky

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 1:16:17 AM3/25/07

to

But typical when republicons run things - the deficit explodes.

RT

Rich Travsky

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 1:23:12 AM3/25/07

to

CB wrote:
> "GOP Adultery Party in '08" <Exxon.P...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in

> > On Mar 22, 9:07 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >> "Night of the Living Crackpots" <Crackp...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in

> >> > On Mar 22, 8:27 am, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > We're spoiled, overly egocentric and arrogant.
> >>
> >> >> >> So you'd like to see China and Russia dominate us.
> >>
> >> >> > Winner take all. Loser cry like little girls.
> >>
> >> >> What does that mean? Once America is economically weaker than China
> >> >> will
> >> >> Communism switch from economic war to the sword for the final
> >> >> solution?
> >> >> Will
> >> >> America be forced to givie up its soverignty and join the EU for
> >> >> safety?
> >>
> >> > The US BORROWS MONEY FROM CHINA TO FINANCE THE IRAQ WAR. China is
> >> > already stronger than the US with a pile of gold accumulated from
> >> > MaoMart shoppers buying cheap imports. They already won that war --
> >> > the borrower is weaker than the lender, stupid.
> >>
> >> WHAT A SHAME
> >
> > You made America Weaker by not taxing to pay for your war. Instead you
> > borrowed from the chinks. You did that.
>
> You did this to America, not me. You and your unions, your taxes on
> inanimate objects rather than personal income. You did this with punitive
> corporate taxes, taxes on Plant Assets, impact fees, licenses and even
> friggin 'intangible taxes'!

Which party has been in control since the 2000 election??????

Rich Travsky

unread,

Mar 26, 2007, 11:46:32 AM3/26/07

to

CB wrote:
> <Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message

> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:27:13 -0400, "CB"
> > <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Only because DemocRATs have obstructed America's CAPITALISTS from being
> >>all
> >>they could be.
> >
> > You uneducated fuckwit
> >
> > At one time "america's Capitalist" had NO restrictions
>
> And look how things have reversed them selves. Union, punitive taxes and
> redundant taxes/over regulation have driven Capitalists offshore.
> Capitalists like Halliburton who took the hateful message you Libs
> threatened and moved offshore.

And the republicons have controlled government for how many years now and did
what about it?

CB

unread,

Mar 26, 2007, 12:02:25 PM3/26/07

to

"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4607EAD8...@hotmMOVEail.com...

> CB wrote:
>> <Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:27:13 -0400, "CB"
>> > <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Only because DemocRATs have obstructed America's CAPITALISTS from being
>> >>all
>> >>they could be.
>> >
>> > You uneducated fuckwit
>> >
>> > At one time "america's Capitalist" had NO restrictions
>>
>> And look how things have reversed them selves. Union, punitive taxes and
>> redundant taxes/over regulation have driven Capitalists offshore.
>> Capitalists like Halliburton who took the hateful message you Libs
>> threatened and moved offshore.
>
> And the republicons have controlled government for how many years now and
> did
> what about it?

It takes a supermajority which Nancy Palosi has learned

GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains

unread,

Mar 26, 2007, 7:32:12 PM3/26/07

to

...

GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains

unread,

Mar 26, 2007, 7:42:34 PM3/26/07

to

...

Rich Travsky

unread,

Mar 28, 2007, 1:38:18 AM3/28/07

to

CB wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:4607EAD8...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > CB wrote:
> >> <Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
> >> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:27:13 -0400, "CB"
> >> > <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Only because DemocRATs have obstructed America's CAPITALISTS from being
> >> >>all
> >> >>they could be.
> >> >
> >> > You uneducated fuckwit
> >> >
> >> > At one time "america's Capitalist" had NO restrictions
> >>
> >> And look how things have reversed them selves. Union, punitive taxes and
> >> redundant taxes/over regulation have driven Capitalists offshore.
> >> Capitalists like Halliburton who took the hateful message you Libs
> >> threatened and moved offshore.
> >
> > And the republicons have controlled government for how many years now and
> > did
> > what about it?
>
> It takes a supermajority which Nancy Palosi has learned

Which has what to do with republicons not doing anything?

CB

unread,

Mar 28, 2007, 12:50:48 AM3/28/07

to

"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

news:4609FF4A...@hotmMOVEail.com...

> CB wrote:
>>
>> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4607EAD8...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>> > CB wrote:
>> >> <Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>> >> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:27:13 -0400, "CB"
>> >> > <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Only because DemocRATs have obstructed America's CAPITALISTS from
>> >> >>being
>> >> >>all
>> >> >>they could be.
>> >> >
>> >> > You uneducated fuckwit
>> >> >
>> >> > At one time "america's Capitalist" had NO restrictions
>> >>
>> >> And look how things have reversed them selves. Union, punitive taxes
>> >> and
>> >> redundant taxes/over regulation have driven Capitalists offshore.
>> >> Capitalists like Halliburton who took the hateful message you Libs
>> >> threatened and moved offshore.
>> >
>> > And the republicons have controlled government for how many years now
>> > and
>> > did
>> > what about it?
>>
>> It takes a supermajority which Nancy Palosi has learned
>
> Which has what to do with republicons not doing anything?

Even when the GOP were in majority not everything could be passed.

I don't know why on Earth Congress doesn't pass a bill to drill in ANWR. The
very reason we're paying through the nose at the pump is directly due to
Congress inaction!

Message has been deleted

Crooked Corporations, Political Crooks

unread,

Mar 28, 2007, 1:05:44 AM3/28/07

to

Why Climate Change issues won't be solved by Politicians or Capitalism

Liberals and Conservatives demonstrate hypocrisy on redressing Global
Warming

Global Warming

It was widely panned for allowing emissions to continue to rise until
2020.

In a 2002 fundraising letter, Mr. Harper questioned the science of
climate change, calling it "tentative and contradictory" and ridiculed
the Kyoto Accord as a money-sucking "socialist scheme." In a speech
delivered later that year, Mr. Harper told fellow Conservatives that
"as economic policy the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental
policy it is a fraud."

With such "enlightening" insights that Harper has provided for us,
let's look at the Liberal-Conservative "Greenwash" that has engulfed
the nation in the past few months in a dick measuring contest between
these two unfit participants.

Liberal Inaction

The Liberals have been on the defensive since the Conservative attack
ads have shed light on the Liberals inability to make the changes
necessary to curb global warming and reduce pollution. Their website
cites that in 2000 the Liberal government announced a $500 million
five year action plan to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by 65
megatonnes each year. The 65 megatonnes seems like quite a bit, unless
one actually reads what Canada's reporting facilities cite as their
GHG emissions, which is at 280 megatonnes according to Environment
Canada. What becomes even more interesting is that these are only the
reporting facilities, which comprise one-third (37%) of Canada's total
GHG causing industries for 2005. While these reports may not be
entirely accurate, Environment Canada's best estimation as to the
source of GHG emissions come from the following breakdown of
industries: 44% Utilities sector, 32% Manufacturing, 18% Mining, Oil,
and Gas extraction and 5% as other. When one compares this with the
corporate subsidies over the past few years of the oil and gas sector
at $40 billion that both Conservative and Liberal governments are
responsible for, $500 million over five years seems like a pittance.

In addition to this, the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based
environmental group, has estimated that federal tax breaks for
Canada's oil and gas industry are worth $1.4-billion a year. The
institute has said the oil sands receive a significant share of those
tax breaks but exact figures are impossible to find. Moreover, the oil
sands continue to be a significant source of GHG emissions. The
disparity between GHG emitting industries such as oil and gas who
receive tax breaks and the money set aside to fight GHG emissions is
massive. Despite this, GHG emissions are not the entire problem, often
overlooked is the pollution caused by these industries that go farther
then just carbon emissions.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's "plan"

Mr. Harper has maintained that the Kyoto targets, agreed to by the
previous Liberal government, are unattainable.

His government introduced a bill in mid-October to reduce Canada's
carbon emissions by 45-65 percent by 2050, based on 2003 emissions.
However, it was widely panned for allowing emissions to continue to
rise until 2020. Something most experts agree is far too late to
reverse many global trends. It is important to note that these are
global trends and Canada cannot act alone, the U.S. is still the
world's largest polluter, but that is no reason for Canada to act
irresponsibly as well.

Mr. Harper's most prominent flaw, beyond the obvious, would be his
absolute disinterest and disengagement in what most Canadians feel is
the most important issue of the day, namely the preservation of our
environment.

Beyond Liberal and Conservative lies about the environment, we need to
delve into the "solutions" that are being touted as our deliverance
from certain disaster. I will not delve into Gore's capitalist dream
of "consumers" buying our way into a sustainable environment that
would be too easy; instead, I would like to focus on carbon trading
systems, the oil sands, and the disbelief held by Martin Durkin, the
director of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

So-called "Emissions trading"

Emissions' trading (voluntary offsets) is an administrative approach
to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving
reductions in the emissions of pollutants. Usually a government agency
sets a limit or cap on the amount of pollutant that can be emitted by
companies. If they exceed this cap, the company must buy credits from
those who pollute less than their allowances, in effect fining the
buyer. The problem with this free market environmentalism, is the same
problem with corporate economic sanctions in other areas of the law,
it becomes a good business practice to pay the fine, because the
benefit of high profit outweigh the costs of breaching the agreement.

According to USA Today, the market for voluntary offsets in 2006 was
nearly 20 times greater than it was in 2004. Alternet states:
"Dwarfing this market is the market for what might be called
involuntary offsets-that is offsets purchased as part of the mandatory
emissions reductions program agreed to by the 38 industrial nation
signatories of the Kyoto Protocol."

This creates an entirely artificial "carbon market" on a global scale,
one highly prone to manipulation and abuse. Nicholas Stern, former
chief economist of the World Bank estimates the value of carbon
credits now in circulation at $28 billion and predicts it will rise to
$40 billion by 2010. This voluntary corporate supported carbon trading
system currently in use is criticized for inflating the benefits of
dreadfully small changes in emissions and offering credits for some
practices that make no real difference on the climate at all.

It also pressures "developing" nations not to develop so that large
corporations and countries can buy the credits made available by the
unused carbon credits from developing nations. There is an inherent
contradiction in this logic, we can develop, you cannot, irrespective
of its effects on the health of your society, a dreadful
contradiction. Another problem with this artificial market is that it
encourages environmental damage, as the conversion of native forests
to faster-growing commercial tree plantations by companies and
governments seeking to profit from carbon credits or offsets. It also
leads to the displacement of peoples whose livelihood depends on the
forest.

An ill-conceived notion at best, the emissions trading program is
often touted by Conservatives as a viable option for Canada to meet
its targets. It should come as no surprise that those who have the
money to afford the carbon credits and thus the license to pollute are
the real victors in this system. So long as the poor have the costs of
climate change shifted onto them to change their lifestyles, the rich
factory owners can continue to make massive profits, and the elitist
"green" politicians can continue to feign taking action.

Oil Sands

James Clark notes Sydney's tar ponds will have to make way for
Canada's newest and largest ecological disaster, the Alberta oil
sands. The great economic boom of Alberta is more of a bane to its
original inhabitants, a perspective not often entering the dialogue of
what is perceived to be Canada's newest economic powerhouse. There are
several issues that often do not enter the discourse of the oil sands,
one of them being its effect on the indigenous community surrounding
it.

According to the Polaris Institute, Grand Chief Herb Norwegian of the
Dehcho First Nations, called on Canada and Alberta to support a
moratorium on further development of the massive oil producing
Athabasca Tar Sands "until some sanity can be brought into this
situation."

No doubt, the 'commercial profits before people' corporate powers are
well aware that 87 percent of the Mackenzie River flows through the
Northwest Territories whose decline in water has affected the fish and
wildlife which in turn has affected northern inhabitants. The heavy
metals such as mercury and lead, mainstays of industrial expansion,
may also be a reason for the diminutive levels of certain species such
as the polar bear whose affliction of a changing habitat can only made
worse by poisons contaminating their surroundings. This is also a
problem for individuals in northern communities who, because of the
Earth's rotation, are most effected by chemicals industry spews into
the environment.

To get an understanding of just how much fresh water is being used to
develop the oil sands, consider the following data. The Alberta Energy
Board has estimated that Suncor Energy, who owns the oldest oil sands
"development" in the region, consumed 45.5 billion barrels of water
for production in 2004. Future development could consume as much as
175 million litres of water each day. In addition to this, there is
widespread deforestation of the area, the oil sands are producing
large amounts of acid rain, and is the largest source of new
greenhouse gas emissions.

Socially and environmentally, the oil sands have already proved to be
a disaster and despite the reproach by some, the following
recommendation must be made. We ought to either significantly slow
down the development of the oil sands, or best-case scenario, stop
developing the oil sands entirely. Many will immediately state that
this will negatively affect the economy, and negatively affect the
working class.

I propose we get beyond this dichotomy of choosing the economy over
the Earth and look at long term objectives and what the affect of
eliminating the development of the oil sands will have on the level of
pollution Canada is belching out. If the development of the oil sands
were to stop, 25% of Canada's total GHG emissions would be eliminated.

Twenty five percent isn't an insignificant amount; it would certainly
aid the realization of meeting our Kyoto goals and would end if not
reverse the social effects to the indigenous inhabitants of the north
who are disproportionably affected by companies who make mass profits.
It would also consequently reduce high levels of toxins being used for
production and free up fresh water, which is an extremely precious
resource.

Finally, in terms of jobs Canada ought to invest its resources into
funding alternative energy projects which would spur growth in the
clean energy production sector.

Disbelief that fit's Dogma

One major piece of evidence of CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions causing
global warming are found in ice core samples from Antarctica. These
show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied
by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is what aids Gore's
"carbon is the root of all evil" movie An Inconvenient Truth. Some
scientists such as Ian Clark, a paleoclimatologist of Earth Sciences
department at Ottawa University, will disagree with this and Clark
states this in the recent Channel 4 film The Great Global Warming
Swindle. He purports to have evidence showing that warmer spells in
the Earth's history actually came an average of 800 years before the
rise in CO2 levels, dispelling the belief that climate change hinges
on CO2 patterns.

But here's the rub, at certain points of prehistory temperatures,
rising temperatures did start 800 years before rises in CO2, and Gore
evades this point. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to what is happening
now, because for the first time ever enormous amounts of extra C02 are
being released. Moreover, there are many reasons to reduce CO2, for
example the high levels of CO2 are directly correlated to the loss of
the arctic ice, which is likely to be free of ice by 2050, for the
first time in millions of years.

While Clark fully acknowledges that recent increases in atmospheric
CO2 are anthropogenic, he does not see any evidence that the "man
made" increases of CO2 are driving temperature change. In fact, there
are some who feel that there is a stronger correlation between solar
flares and the Earths temperature then "man made" CO2 and the
temperature rise.

However according to The Independent, variations in solar activity may
have been responsible for past warm periods, but its hard to be
entirely sure because we have only been taking good measurements of it
since 1978. Recent solar increases are too small to have created the
present warming, and have been less significant than greenhouse gases
since about 1850. This is a point the The Great Global Warming Swindle
fails to mention.

It's important to note that CO2 only makes up a small portion of the
Earth's atmosphere, and without getting into scientific academia, we
should take heed that any politician claiming to know the science
could be selling you their newest brand of political posturing. The
"be-all and end-all" of climate change is not simply CO2 emissions or
GHG emissions, often touted as the only reasons, there are multiple
factors. This is the nature of science, constant healthy scepticism,
so we should not simply ignore the voices of dissent in the science
community as heretics, but disagree based on sound logic and science.
The science is simply more complicated then just the CO2 levels,
although they are important, its not entirely what Al Gore would have
you believe.

I make mention of this because it is important for all of us to not
get carried away with the politics of global climate change now that
it has become the newest brand of social control for politicians.
Remaining as objective as we can, without denying or affirming
anything to the extent of dogmatism, may be our best bet not to be
used by those who would profit from us.

Irrespective of Global Warming, pollution in the very general sense is
still a problem for the Earth and everything in it, something that
large corporations, who profit most from petrochemicals and pollution,
seem to disregard as unimportant. It follows then, that they will not
be apart of the solution.

The current environmental plan put forward by the Harper
administration is filled with the empty promises of yesteryear (and
other disingenuous so-called "commitments" that can be easily
retracted if the Conservatives ever won a majority government). The
Harper minority government and Dion's Liberals are disappointments for
those hoping for real change in our pollution and related Global
Warming generating policies.

Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.

Phil Hays

unread,

Mar 28, 2007, 1:22:04 AM3/28/07

to

CB wrote:

> I don't know why on Earth Congress doesn't pass a bill to drill in ANWR.
> The very reason we're paying through the nose at the pump is directly due
> to Congress inaction!

The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge has a few months worth of oil when
compared with global production. Not enough to matter much at all on
price today, or make much change in the date of Peak Oil.

--
Phil Hays

Crooked Corporations Backing Crooked Politicians

unread,

Mar 28, 2007, 1:29:25 AM3/28/07

to

Drought, heat kill Arizona 'sky islands' :: Unequivocal, Joe Fischer,
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070327-18104200-bc-us-climate-change.xml.

Drought, heat kill Arizona 'sky islands'

TUCSON, March 27 (UPI) -- Arizona's "sky islands," mountainside oases
that provide a cool lush retreat from the desert, are falling victim
to higher temperatures and a long drought.

Debbie Fagan told The New York Times that she settled in Summerhaven
near Tucson 25 years ago after a country-wide search for the perfect
place.

"Nature is confused," Fagan said. "We used to have four seasons. Now
we have two. I love this place dearly, and this is very hard for me to
watch."

In 2003 and 2004, wildfires devastated thousands of acres. The trees
were first weakened by high temperatures, and then hit by insects with
fire finishing the job.

Scientists say that the devastation of the "sky islands" suggests that
the combination of record warmth and drought is not just a normal
climate swing.

"A lot of people think climate change and the ecological repercussions
are 50 years away," said Thomas Swetnam, head of the Laboratory of
Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "But it's
happening now in the West. The data is telling us that we are in the
middle of one of the first big indicators of climate change impacts in
the continental United States."

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/news/article_1283629.php/Above_normal_U.S._temps_raise_drought_fear
Above normal U.S. temps raise drought fear
ITHACA, NY, United States (UPI) -- Temperatures remained above normal
across much of the United States for the second week in a row as
farmers get ready for another growing season.

Weekly readings were as much as 15 degrees higher than average for
this time of year across the nation`s mid-section, but were 5 degrees
below normal in the Northeast, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service said Tuesday.

In the West, the warm weather promoted rapid crop development while
contributing to premature melt of high-elevation snow packs. That
could result in late-summer problems moisture stemming from low stream
flows, reduced irrigation supplies and a longer wildfire season, NASS
said.

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2007/03/161.shtml
Drought grips Victoria, horse feed prices skyrocket

The Big Dry is tightening its grip on Australia, with all of
Victoria's agricultural land now officially declared to be in drought
for the first time in the state's history.

The state Government declaration means financial assistance will be
available to farmers and agricultural businesses in the last remaining
parts of the state that had not, until now, qualified for help.

The drought began in 2002 and is considered the worst in a century.
More than 90 per cent of adjoining New South Wales is also in drought.

It was thought that an end to El Nino weather patterns would see
weather return to normal, but it had yet to do so.

Some horse owners are reportedly under pressure, with the large
quantities of hay required, together with high prices, making it a
struggle to keep stock fed.

CB

unread,

Mar 28, 2007, 10:26:10 AM3/28/07

to

Planetary Warming, not just Global

"Crooked Corporations Backing Crooked Politicians"
<Crooke...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
news:1175059765....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws

unread,

Mar 28, 2007, 3:53:45 PM3/28/07

to

The GOP Vs. Global Warming :: Why do they want to be the "Kill the
Earth Party"?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/26/opinion/main2608369.shtml
The GOP Vs. Global Warming
The New Republic: Why Are Republicans More Skeptical, Even As Evidence
Grows?

(The New Republic) This column was written by Jonathan Chait. Last
year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and
House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the
respondents, 23 percent said yes, 77 percent said no. In the year
since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount
of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide,
finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90
percent.

So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results?
Only 13 percent of Republicans agreed that global warming has been
proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans
are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional
testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from
GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on
global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax
cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader,
it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected
Republican.

How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just
tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them
are. Leading global warming skeptic Representative Joe L. Barton (R-
Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the
Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his
relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.

But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of
GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry
has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the
last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.

The truth is more complicated - and more depressing: A small number of
hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the
thinking for the whole conservative movement.

Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course,
neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend
to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a
tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming
professional consensus.

National Review magazine, with its popular Web site, is a perfect
example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming,
or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution.
Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty
clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate
science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore
as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their
thinking on the issue.

Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted
aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that
Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John
Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that
humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican
refused and was denied a seat.

Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. and Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich.,
both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee.
Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this
case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican
researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global
warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global
warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood
lefties.

The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative
figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank
and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the
Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the
phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming
understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their
favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral
element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on
global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The
technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case
for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.

In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you
couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is
perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah,
Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to
those hippies!

By Jonathan Chait
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's
top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and
analysis.

dh

unread,

Mar 29, 2007, 8:41:33 AM3/29/07

to

On 26 Mar 2007 16:32:12 -0700, "GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains" <Reichtur...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:

>...

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Souls Black as Coal

unread,

Mar 29, 2007, 12:42:44 AM3/29/07

to

pearl

unread,

Mar 29, 2007, 9:42:36 AM3/29/07

to

<dh@.> wrote in message news:8ucn03pl8q23umm05...@4ax.com...

> On 26 Mar 2007 16:32:12 -0700, "GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains" <Reichtur...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
..

> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

'Livestock a major threat to environment
..
... a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report,
Livestock's Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and Options.
"The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must
be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening
beyond its present level," it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included,
the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from
human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even
more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-
related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced
methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced
by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia,
which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly
permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable
land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests
are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation,
especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Land and water

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral
reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used
to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land
and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss;
15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
with livestock identified as a culprit.
...'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

The effects of widespread deforestation on the hydrological cycle:

'(i) Micro-climate: Deforestation of TRF leads to drastic changes
in microclimate (Lal and Cummings, 1979), as outlined in Fig. 6.
In general, deforestation eliminates the buffering effect of
vegetation cover and accentuates the extremes. Fluctuations in
micro-climatic parameters are greatly enhanced (e.g., relative
humidity, maximum and minimum temperatures for soil and air).
Deforestation decreases rainfall effectiveness and increases
aridization of the climate. Forest removal increases the magnitude
and intensity of net radiation reaching the soil surface. Ghuman
and Lal (1987) observed that in south central Nigeria, on average,
10.5 and ll.5 MJ/m2/day of insolation were received on a cleared
site compared to 0.4 and 0.3 MJ/m2/day in the forest during the
dry seasons of 1984 and 1985, respectively. There was no
appreciable difference in solar radiation received under forest
during the rainy (May) and dry (December) seasons (Table 8).
Vegetation removal also increases wind velocity (Table 8).

Deforestation decreases the maximum relative humidity, especially
during mid-day. There is also a corresponding increase in air
temperature and evaporation rate. Perhaps the most drastic effect
of deforestation is on soil temperature. The maximum soil
temperature at I to 5 cm depth can be 5° to 20°C higher on
cleared land on a sunny day compared with land under TRF
cover. Because of high soil evaporation, the soil moisture content
of the surface layer is also lower in cleared than in forested soil
(Fig. 7).
..
There are several major concerns about deforestation of TRF.
These concerns are related to local, regional, and global effects
(Fig. 6). Local effects are the most drastic and are related to
changes in soil properties, vegetation, and micro-climate.
Regional effects are related to hydrological characteristics and
changes in meso-climate. Global effects are due to changes in
global cycles of C and N and water vapor and may be related
to global warming or the greenhouse effect.
..'
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu27se/uu27se05.htm

'As stocks run out and harvests fail, the world faces its worst crisis
for 30 years

By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 03 September 2006

Food supplies are shrinking alarmingly around the globe, plunging the
world into its greatest crisis for more than 30 years. New figures show
that this year's harvest will fail to produce enough to feed everyone on
Earth, for the sixth time in the past seven years. Humanity has so far
managed by eating its way through stockpiles built up in better times -
but these have now fallen below the danger level.

Food prices have already started to rise as a result, and threaten to soar
out of reach of many of the 4.2 billion people who live in the world's
most vulnerable countries. And the new "green" drive to get cars to run
on biofuels threatens to make food even scarcer and more expensive.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA), which produce the world's two
main forecasts of the global crop production, both estimate that this
year's grain harvest will fall for the second successive year.
...
Brown expects the food crisis to get much worse as more and more
land becomes exhausted, soil erodes, water becomes scarcer, and
global warming cuts harvests.
..'
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1325467.ece

vs. abundance, and restoration of healthy ecological systems.

From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment.
1997. Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
"How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?"...

'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian
diet people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large
numbers of people do change their diets. The calories and protein
available from present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to
ten billion people. A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000
calories daily for ten billion people, however, would overwhelm
the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The
global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce
far more food than what ten billion people need.
..'
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=56

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 29, 2007, 2:45:31 PM3/29/07

to

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>..........

> It generates 65 percent of human-
>related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming
>Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
>
>And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced
>methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced
>by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia,
>which contributes significantly to acid rain.

>[snip]

And we already knew that water vapor can be
100 times as warming as CO2, so now it sounds like
everything is many times as warming as CO2, so why
are only carbon credits sold?

Should I buy air conditioned coveralls?

Joe Fischer

Insignificant Cockroach Turds

unread,

Mar 29, 2007, 5:18:26 PM3/29/07

to

The CORRUPT RICHARD S. LINDZEN, DESPICABLE OUTCAST OF SCIENCE

In 1993 documents appeared in secret tobacco conspiracy file cabinets
about a fake science conference organized by the documented corrupt S.
Fred Singer. This meeting in Washington, DC, was facetiously titled
"Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process", funded by two
lung-killer industries tobacco and asbestos, and Lindzen was a
prominant hoaxer at this event. Lindzen has been paid in a CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY to defraud the public on the immanent dangers of Global
Warming, just as he participated with co-conspirators to aid Singer's
science hoaxes on behalf of tobacco and asbestos SERIAL MURDERER
CORPORATIONS.

Every single fact below can stand up in court in the trial of Lindzen
for FELONY CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Much more incriminating evidence will
be adduced at trial.

Google search engine reports 164 results looking for Richard S.
Lindzen AND "Washington Times" owned by the convicted felon Sun Myung
Moon. Moon has hosted many fake science conferences to exploit for
propaganda purposes. Singer apprenteced the fake science conference
back when Singer was President of the moonie "Washingon Institute for
Values in Public Policy". No records exist in public archives on what
Moon paid Singer as president of the Wash Inst, but here is a link
showing how generous Moon is to one successor president after Singer's
term -- $142,708/yr salary.
http://documents.guidestar.org/1998/521/293/1998-521293998-1-9.pdf

Moon is master of money laundering and subversive payoffs -- we will
never know who all he paid and how much they pocketed. We do know that
Google search engine finds 152 webpages linking Moon AND Lindzen.
There is an unseemly association between a science corruptor and a
known identified corrupt Lindzen: 314 webpage results for Lindzen AND
"Sun Myung Moon" OR "Washington Times".

http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html SUBJECT: The
Heidelberg Appeal Date: 23 Mar 1993

BACKGROUND

This coalition has its roots in the asbestos industry, but has become
a broad and independent movement in a littlc bit less than a year. We
are involved with the coalition through the French NMA, but we are
being discreet because some of the coalition members are concerned
about a "tobacco connection".

Our strategy is to continue discreetly supporting the coalition and
help it grow in size and credibility. The timing is particularly
opportune because of Bill Clinton's sympathy to the messages of the
coalition (see attached IHT article).

If you would like more information on how to help support thc
movement, pIease contact me or Tom Borelli on the US side.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502284041-4042.html
(Philip Morris Documents)
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C. Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages

Persons identified in pulling off this science hoax included: CORRUPT
Michael Fumento, CORRUPT Michael Gough, CORRUPT Robert Jastrow,
CORRUPT Michael Salomon, CORRUPT Robert Tollison, and the arch-
CORRUPTOR S. Fred Singer ringleader.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at
MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by
industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to
address the looming environmental crisis.

Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500
a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a
Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote,
entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific
Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]

According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including
Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S.
Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is
untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded
campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable
ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation.
Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through
the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's
scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion
focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have
effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]

External links

* Ross Gelbspan, "The Heat is On: The warming of the world's
climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.
* Daniel Grossman, Dissent in the Maelstrom,"Scientific American,
November 2001.
* "Richard Lindzen," Wikipedia.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
THE HEAT IS ON:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
by Ross Gelbspan.
from HARPER'S MAGAZINE/December, 1995

... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know that
the march of science, and of political action, may be slowed by
disinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil
industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has
spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate
change. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year.
Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 on
the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the American
Petroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of the
GCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-
Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossil
fuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combined
yearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmental
groups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, according
to officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and the World Wildlife Fund.

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics
-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr.
Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have proven
extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and
television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question
is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their
influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed
conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R.,
Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap"
and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to
those government science programs designed to monitor the health of
the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the
environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the
skeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expert
witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400
million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
[#1] ...

[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and
distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was
shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the
governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises
that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing
concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas
of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new
grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a
nurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Experts
note that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an
explosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentially
significant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well as
to a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels'
video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may be
trying to tell them now.]

pearl

unread,

Mar 30, 2007, 6:39:31 AM3/30/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote in message news:ov1o03pf8q65abgsq...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >..........
> > It generates 65 percent of human-
> >related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming
> >Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
> >
> >And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced
> >methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced
> >by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia,
> >which contributes significantly to acid rain.
> >[snip]
>
> And we already knew that water vapor can be
> 100 times as warming as CO2,

Significant changes to natural systems has had significant effects.

'Increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases resulting from the
burning of fossil fuels and the deforestation of forests have altered
the composition of the atmosphere, resulting in an increase in the
amount of heat energy trapped at or near the Earth's surface.
This enhancement of the greenhouse effect is increasing surface
temperatures while provoking other changes in climate as well.
Both model results and observational evidence indicate that roughly
80% of the net additional heat energy trapped at the Earth's surface
by the build-up of greenhouse gases is transferred back to the
atmosphere through increased evaporation of water from the land
and ocean, where condensation returns the additional heat to the
atmosphere causing warming, while enhancing precipitation. The
remaining 20% of the net additional heat from the enhanced
greenhouse effect contributes directly to warming of the surface
and the lower atmosphere. Both contributions lead to a general
warming of the Earth's climate and to an increase in the water
vapor in the atmosphere (warming increases the atmosphere's
water-holding capacity), thereby further enhancing the greenhouse
effect. Thus, the trapped heat energy serves to accelerate the
cycling of water (as water vapor) from the surface to the
atmosphere, and enhances the transfer of the water vapor back to
the surface as rain and snow (condensation and precipitation).
The increased availability of water vapor in the atmosphere also
leads to a significant increase in the energy available to drive storms
and associated weather fronts, therefore affecting rainfall rates,
precipitation amounts, storm intensity, and related runoff.
..
Precipitation amounts have increased in the mid and high latitudes,
often in excess of 10% since the turn of the century. This is
especially important because once soils become saturated,
seemingly small increases in rainfall can cause large increases in
runoff, resulting in floods.
...'
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/971105DD.html

'Researchers from Duke University, Durham, N.C., analyzed multiple
years of data using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
General Circulation Computer Model (GCM) and Global Precipitation
Climatology Project (GPCP) to produce several climate simulations.
Their research found that deforestation in different areas of the globe
affects rainfall patterns over a considerable region.

Deforestation in the Amazon region of South America (Amazonia)
influences rainfall from Mexico to Texas and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Similarly, deforesting lands in Central Africa affects precipitation
in the upper and lower U.S Midwest, while deforestation in
Southeast Asia was found to alter rainfall in China and the Balkan
Peninsula.It is important to note that such changes primarily occur
in certain seasons and that the combination of deforestation in
these areas enhances rain in one region while reducing it in another.
..
Specifically, deforestation of Amazonia was found to severely
reduce rainfall in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, and northern Mexico
during the spring and summer seasons when water is crucial for
agricultural productivity. Deforestation of Central Africa has a
similar effect, causing a significant precipitation decrease in the
lower U.S Midwest during the spring and summer and in the upper
U.S. Midwest in winter and spring. Deforestation in Southeast Asia
alters rainfall in China and the Balkan Peninsula most significantly.

Image to right: Deforestation Affects Animal Habitats: This
picture of a giraffe coming through trees was taken of the
Skukuza area during NASA's SAFARI 2000 field mission,
just prior to the African monsoon season. ..

Elimination of any of these tropical forests, Amazonia, Central
Africa or Southeast Asia, considerably enhances rainfall in the
southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. However, the combined
effect of deforestation in all three regions shifts the greatest
precipitation decline in the U.S. to California during the winter
season and further increases rainfall in the southern tip of the
Arabian Peninsula.

Improved understanding of tropical forested regions is valuable
to scientists because of their strong influence on the global climate.
The Amazon Basin literally drives weather systems around the
world. The tropics receive two-thirds of the world's rainfall, and
when it rains, water changes from liquid to vapor and back again,
storing and releasing heat energy in the process. With so much
rainfall, an incredible amount of heat is released into the
atmosphere - making the tropics the Earth's primary source of
heat redistribution.

"Deforestation does not appear to modify the global average of
precipitation, but it changes precipitation patterns and distributions
by affecting the amount of both sensible heat and that released into
the atmosphere when water vapor condenses, called latent heat,"
said Avissar. "Associated changes in air pressure distribution shift
the typical global circulation patterns, sending storm systems off
their typical paths." And, because of the Amazon's location, any
sort of weather hiccup from the area could signal serious changes
for the rest of the world like droughts and severe storms.

Clearly, land-cover changes in tropical regions carry potentially
significant consequences on water resources, wildfire frequency,
agriculture and related activities at various remote locations. And
while greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants receive considerable
attention, this study shows that land-cover change is another
important parameter that needs to be considered in climate policies,
especially since deforestation rates in tropical Africa, Southeast
Asia, and South America have remained constant or have increased
over the past two decades. Land-cover change, depending on its
nature, can either mitigate or exacerbate greenhouse warming.
...'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/deforest_rainfall.html

dh

unread,

Mar 31, 2007, 10:51:01 PM3/31/07

to

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:42:36 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message news:8ucn03pl8q23umm05...@4ax.com...
>> On 26 Mar 2007 16:32:12 -0700, "GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains" <Reichtur...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>..
>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
>'Livestock a major threat to environment
. . .

_________________________________________________________
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pastures/Grazing/Systems/Techniques/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rich Travsky

unread,

Apr 1, 2007, 12:20:17 AM4/1/07

to

kT wrote:
> CB wrote:
> > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> CB wrote:
> >>> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

> >>>> CB wrote:
> >>>>> <Cl...@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:27:13 -0400, "CB"
> >>>>>> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Only because DemocRATs have obstructed America's CAPITALISTS from
> >>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>> they could be.
> >>>>>> You uneducated fuckwit
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At one time "america's Capitalist" had NO restrictions
> >>>>> And look how things have reversed them selves. Union, punitive taxes
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> redundant taxes/over regulation have driven Capitalists offshore.
> >>>>> Capitalists like Halliburton who took the hateful message you Libs
> >>>>> threatened and moved offshore.
> >>>> And the republicons have controlled government for how many years now
> >>>> and
> >>>> did
> >>>> what about it?
> >>> It takes a supermajority which Nancy Palosi has learned
> >> Which has what to do with republicons not doing anything?
> >
> > Even when the GOP were in majority not everything could be passed.
> >
> > I don't know why on Earth Congress doesn't pass a bill to drill in ANWR.
>

> Because there isn't enough oil there to make a dent in our problem you

Bingo.

> stupid fuck. It's a fucking non starter that only a neocon republican
> would start, like an invasion of Iraq or something. Even the neocons
> weren't that stupid, Iraq has a whole shitload more oil than Anwar.

>
> > The very reason we're paying through the nose at the pump is directly due to
> > Congress inaction!
>

> Wow, irrationality, it's the American way!

CB is no American.

> >>>>> poverty, squalor, sickness, hunger, lynchings,
> >>>>>> beatings, and use of government Against PEOPLE (for
> >>>>>> business profit), segregation, and NO middle class.
>

> Yeah, that too.

Rich Travsky

unread,

Apr 1, 2007, 12:34:24 AM4/1/07

to

CB wrote:
>
> Planetary Warming, not just Global

Earth is a planet, very good! There might be hope for you! Now, if we could get
you over the delusion that satan controls the weather or answer the question
"are humans mammals", you might be cured.

pearl

unread,

Apr 1, 2007, 6:37:56 AM4/1/07

to

<dh@.> wrote in message news:ig7u03p0eealj0h4g...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:42:36 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:8ucn03pl8q23umm05...@4ax.com...
> >> On 26 Mar 2007 16:32:12 -0700, "GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains" <Reichtur...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> >..
> >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> >
> >'Livestock a major threat to environment

Land and water

> . . .

> _________________________________________________________
> Environmental Benefits
>
> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
> erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
> and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.
>
> Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
> average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
> Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
> was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
> pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
> pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
> also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
> whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
> limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
> the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
> crop production.

'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the
soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On
lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at
an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed
100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S.
pasture land is being overgrazed.
..
The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
..
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
..
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
..'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html

U.S acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
Vegetables 3,264,343
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html

= 12,748,605 acres; (* 0.4047) = 5,159,360 hectares.
+
Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
(= 1,806,010 hectares)
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
+
6 million hectares grain (based on the above from Cornell).
=
Total: 12,965,370 hectares, round to 13 million hectares.

> It will also protect our water quality.
>
> High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
> can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
> several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
> pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
> waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
> wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
> phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
> low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
effects. Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
and downstream ecosystems.

.. recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
..'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

> Wildlife Advantages
>
> Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
> meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
> the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
> thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
> 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
> frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
> populations are now at risk.
>
> Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
> because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
> (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
> rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
> detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
> until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
> as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
> bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
> benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
> cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
> provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

'Animal Enemies

In the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for
an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to
eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable,
a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as
possessing some offensive characteristic.
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html
Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

> Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
> the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
> (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
> wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
> future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
> invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
> also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
> may serve as wildlife habitat.
>
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pastures/Grazing/Systems/Techniques/MIG/Why.html

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
..'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

Erik J. Helgesen

unread,

Apr 13, 2007, 2:04:29 PM4/13/07

to

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:02:59 GMT, Bill Ward
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

>While others give them our money to buy their votes. But you're off into
>politics, not science. Evidence, not votes, counts in science.

And we know what the "evidence" tells us, don't we?

Science Magazine - The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

--
Erik

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let a man overcome anger by love, evil by good,
the greedy by liberality, the liar by truth.
-- Buddha

Erik J. Helgesen

unread,

Apr 13, 2007, 2:04:26 PM4/13/07

to

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:37:14 GMT, Bill Ward
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

>If you're not a critic, you're not a scientist.

That may be true, but most of today's critics of AGW are not
scientists and they don't produce peer reviewed papers.

Erik J. Helgesen

unread,

Apr 13, 2007, 2:04:28 PM4/13/07

to

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:28:56 -0600, chico <n...@friggin.way> wrote:

>Science is NOT a matter of consensus. Those who rely on this
>argument -- as Al Gore himself does every chance he gets -- are
>both committing a logical fallacy (e.g., appealing to authority and
>popularity, among others) and demonstrating a lack of familiarity
>with the scientific method.

Nice strawman. Nobody says that consensus is science. Scientific
consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of
the scientific method. However, the content of the consensus may
itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific
method. Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position,
and opinion of scientists in a particular field of science at a
particular time.