New documentary debunks Al Gore and the global warming scam
Irish Mike
film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in
schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided"
views.
Filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney challenged Al Gore's claims
about global warming in a new documentary, Nov. 20, 2009. (FNC)
Al Gore's award-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth,"
socked two years ago by a British court ruling that found several errors,
is facing additional scrutiny with the release of a new documentary that
seeks to rebut many of Gore's claims.
Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann
McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence
outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong,"
they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film
is not worth screening in schools because it is shown there as "an article
of science, not faith."
"I wouldn't like our documentary to have nine significant errors and if it
did, I certainly wouldn't be showing it to school children across America,
and that's the important thing," McAleer told Fox News' Sean Hannity on
Friday.
In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the
former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, a
problem he says is the biggest moral challenge facing the globe.
If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore
contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to
300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be
driven to extinction in half a century.
The film went on to win Academy Awards for Gore and Guggenheim and to
re-energize the environmental movement.
But in 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's film contained
nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless
accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views.
The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate
change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, adding that the film is
"substantially founded up scientific research and fact" but that the
errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in an contentious
exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the
keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the errors
found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through each of the
errors but added that the ruling was in favor of screening the film in
schools.
"There's been such a long discussion of each one of those specific
things," he said. "One of them for example was that polar bears really
aren't endangered. Well polar bears didn't get that word." The audience
laughed.
Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is
increasing.
"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.
"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same question
from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased, surely they're not
in danger."
Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by
environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his
microphone.
McAleer, who has reported in the past for the Financial Times and the
Economist, among other outlets, said he believes the incident shows that
the members of the Society of Environmental Journalists are simply
environmentalists, not journalists.
"They see it's their duty to protect the multi-millionaire
politician/businessman, rather than support the journalist asking
difficult questions," he said.
McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing research
for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist to dial back
the science to fit his narrative.
"So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just doesn't
like the truth."
McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that there's a
consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and consequences of global
warming.
"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000
people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics works
like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and then it
becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells the truth."
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
-----�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
moviePig
I have no personal certainties about Global Warming(TM). But re the
posted article, I *can* say that:
1) The quoted "polar-bear debate" was quite clearly won by Gore.
2) There is no "consensus that everyone agrees about [Global
Warming]". There may be a consensus about Global Warming itself, but
of course that's different...
3) Even tolerating McIlhenny's ill-chosen metric, science doesn't
work on the basis of who's right, but rather of who seems to be most
right so far.
4) Claiming that Gore asked "asked a scientist to dial back the
science to fit [Gore's] narrative" is primo weasel-wording for the
ignorant ...at least in the absence of specific details, especially
including context.
5) I don't think British Court judges ought to be ruling when
they're High...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Irish Mike
The biggest problem with the global warming scam is that it has become an
industry of its own and thousands of people have jobs that depend on
keeping the scam alive. You've got ol' lard ass Al Gore who lives In a
mansion, drives in a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs and flies around in a
private jet and has made tens of millions of dollars telling gullible
idiots that they need to eat less, live colder and ride bicycles to save
the planet.
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
_____________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
michael
People who work at any national park any where there are ice on mountain
tops , even in the united states, can tell you that half of it is gone
already. There are no more snows on Hemingway's Kilimanjaro. I am afraid
your crakpot judge is just another lawyer posing as climate specialist.
There are plenty of specialists on stamps who also debunk the theory, i have
been told.
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> skrev i melding
news:30iot6x...@recgroups.com...
RichA
dump bin at a local bookstore.
trotsky
> Last time I saw Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth" it was in the $2
> dump bin at a local bookstore.
Last time I was Rich's book--oh, that's right, he's an anonymous piece
of crap that can't lay claim to anything but being an anonymous piece of
crap.
calvin
greatest political boon for liberals the world has ever known.
That alone should give anyone with a skeptical or cynical
bent pause.
william
Even if it is true, the real fallacy of the "threat" is that it's
caused by human behavior. Proving that correlation comes down to a he-
said, she-said conversation among scientists and let's face it all of
them have an ax to grind.
William
www.williamahearn.com
moviePig
'Pause'? Virtually any publicly expressed ideology nowadays should
give anyone full-stop. That's why I take the conservative position
that it's best not to experiment (i.e., dick) with the environment,
lest it return the favor...
calvin
> On Nov 23, 12:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Whether the global warming threat is true or false, it is the
> > greatest political boon for liberals the world has ever known.
> > That alone should give anyone with a skeptical or cynical
> > bent pause.
>
> 'Pause'? Virtually any publicly expressed ideology nowadays should
> give anyone full-stop. That's why I take the conservative position
> that it's best not to experiment (i.e., dick) with the environment,
> lest it return the favor...
It's also best not to dick with free enterprise.
moviePig
Free enterprise is indeed a powerful engine. That's precisely why it
needs a transmission... and brakes...
Anthony Buckland
threads is individuals with personal axes to grind, and how
much is a bunch of Republican congressional aides earning
their living?
Irish Mike
Give me a fucking break. Now you want to blame the global warming scam on
"Republican Congressional Aides"? Why don't you look at the guy who has
made the most money from the scam. Which is ol' lardass Al Gore who
happens to be a Democrat. Al Gore lives in a mansion, he drives around in
a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs, he flies in a private jet and he has made
more than $100,000,000.00 from the global warming scam. The guy has a
carbon foot print the size of Oprah Winfrey's ass and gullible idiots pay
him to lecture them on how they need to eat less, live colder and ride a
bicycle to save the planet.
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
Irish Mike
_____________________________________________________________________�
trotsky
Sure, it's such a "boon" that it will get health care reform passed.
Are you on crack?
trotsky
> On Nov 23, 12:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> Whether the global warming threat is true or false, it is the
>> greatest political boon for liberals the world has ever known.
>> That alone should give anyone with a skeptical or cynical
>> bent pause.
>
> 'Pause'? Virtually any publicly expressed ideology nowadays should
> give anyone full-stop. That's why I take the conservative position
> that it's best not to experiment (i.e., dick) with the environment,
> lest it return the favor...
Per Mayan prophecy, you mean?
trotsky
What page of "Mein Kampf" was that on?
trotsky
> On Nov 23 2009 2:11 AM, Anthony Buckland wrote:
>
>> So, how much of these suddenly prolific warming-denier
>> threads is individuals with personal axes to grind, and how
>> much is a bunch of Republican congressional aides earning
>> their living?
>
> Give me a fucking break. Now you want to blame the global warming scam on
> "Republican Congressional Aides"? Why don't you look at the guy who has
> made the most money from the scam. Which is ol' lardass Al Gore who
> happens to be a Democrat. Al Gore lives in a mansion, he drives around in
> a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs, he flies in a private jet and he has made
> more than $100,000,000.00 from the global warming scam. The guy has a
> carbon foot print the size of Oprah Winfrey's ass and gullible idiots pay
> him to lecture them on how they need to eat less, live colder and ride a
> bicycle to save the planet.
>
> Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
> makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
> cookies.
Sounds like someone has a problem with free enterprise.
calvin
I didn't say it didn't. My generalization was no worse than
your generalization. Environmentalism also needs brakes.
The cavemen dicked with the environment when they
provided food, clothing, and shelter for themselves. You
need to be reasonable about where to draw the line too.
You have as much obligation to pay attention to
environmentalism and its politics as you do to free
enterprise and its politics.
AZ Nomad
>On Nov 23 2009 2:11 AM, Anthony Buckland wrote:
>> So, how much of these suddenly prolific warming-denier
>> threads is individuals with personal axes to grind, and how
>> much is a bunch of Republican congressional aides earning
>> their living?
>Give me a fucking break. Now you want to blame the global warming scam on
>"Republican Congressional Aides"? Why don't you look at the guy who has
Newsflash: warming deniers aren't pro global warming.
Irish Mike
"warming deniers". LMAO! Actually, I'm a "warming denier who believes
the whole global warming scam is a large crock of pure bullshit." But if
I'm a "warming denier" then you're a "left wing global warming hysterical
moron". But this is a free country so by all means, put on your Al Gore
tee shirt, turn off your furnace, hop on your bicycle and go peddle your
gullible butt off to save the planet. Just remember to wave as ol' lard
ass Al flies over in his private jet.
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
-----�
Padmar Mushkin
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 23 2009 10:54 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:43:10 -0800, Irish Mike <ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
>wrote:
>> >On Nov 23 2009 2:11 AM, Anthony Buckland wrote:
>>
>> >> So, how much of these suddenly prolific warming-denier
>> >> threads is individuals with personal axes to grind, and how
>> >> much is a bunch of Republican congressional aides earning
>> >> their living?
>>
>> >Give me a fucking break. Now you want to blame the global warming scam on
>> >"Republican Congressional Aides"? Why don't you look at the guy who has
>>
>> Newsflash: warming deniers aren't pro global warming.
>
>"warming deniers". LMAO! Actually, I'm a "warming denier who believes
>the whole global warming scam is a large crock of pure bullshit."
What is your explanation for the massive reduction of glaciers around
the world?
Irish Mike
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:53:08 -0800, "Irish Mike"
> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 23 2009 10:54 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:43:10 -0800, Irish Mike <ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> >On Nov 23 2009 2:11 AM, Anthony Buckland wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So, how much of these suddenly prolific warming-denier
> >> >> threads is individuals with personal axes to grind, and how
> >> >> much is a bunch of Republican congressional aides earning
> >> >> their living?
> >>
> >> >Give me a fucking break. Now you want to blame the global warming scam
on
> >> >"Republican Congressional Aides"? Why don't you look at the guy who has
> >>
> >> Newsflash: warming deniers aren't pro global warming.
> >
> >"warming deniers". LMAO! Actually, I'm a "warming denier who believes
> >the whole global warming scam is a large crock of pure bullshit."
>
> What is your explanation for the massive reduction of glaciers around
> the world?
First, I don't believe there has been a "massive reduction of glaciers
around the world". Second, I don't believe the propaganda being put out
by the global warming hysteria loons and neither do hundreds of other
scientists. Third, the global warming loons recently admitted that they
had over looked an ice flow the size of the state of Texas.
There are many real and serious problems that we need to focus on. Muslim
terrorists, Iran's nuclear weapon program, Israel's potential response,
our collapsing economy, our declining dollar, record high unemployment,
multi-trillion dollar deficits and a president that is spending the
country in to bankruptcy while declaring war on free speech. However,
global warming is not one of those problems.
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
____________________________________________________________________�
Padmar Mushkin
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 23 2009 12:03 PM, Padmar Mushkin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:53:08 -0800, "Irish Mike"
>> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 23 2009 10:54 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:43:10 -0800, Irish Mike <ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 23 2009 2:11 AM, Anthony Buckland wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> So, how much of these suddenly prolific warming-denier
>> >> >> threads is individuals with personal axes to grind, and how
>> >> >> much is a bunch of Republican congressional aides earning
>> >> >> their living?
>> >>
>> >> >Give me a fucking break. Now you want to blame the global warming scam
>on
>> >> >"Republican Congressional Aides"? Why don't you look at the guy who has
>> >>
>> >> Newsflash: warming deniers aren't pro global warming.
>> >
>> >"warming deniers". LMAO! Actually, I'm a "warming denier who believes
>> >the whole global warming scam is a large crock of pure bullshit."
>>
>> What is your explanation for the massive reduction of glaciers around
>> the world?
>
>First, I don't believe there has been a "massive reduction of glaciers
>around the world".
You don't have to "believe". Just compare photographs from 100 years
ago to today. Or do you think the photos have been faked?
trotsky
> On Nov 23, 12:51 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 12:28 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 12:20 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 12:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>> Whether the global warming threat is true or false, it is the
>>>>> greatest political boon for liberals the world has ever known.
>>>>> That alone should give anyone with a skeptical or cynical
>>>>> bent pause.
>>>> 'Pause'? Virtually any publicly expressed ideology nowadays should
>>>> give anyone full-stop. That's why I take the conservative position
>>>> that it's best not to experiment (i.e., dick) with the environment,
>>>> lest it return the favor...
>>> It's also best not to dick with free enterprise.
>> Free enterprise is indeed a powerful engine. That's precisely why it
>> needs a transmission... and brakes...
>
> I didn't say it didn't. My generalization was no worse than
> your generalization.
"I'm being just as shitty as you" is the typical GOP stance.
moviePig
Yes, it is. But, fwiw, I made no generalization that I'm aware of.
(Re what Calvin may think himself aware of, I can only pray for
guidance...)
calvin
Suddenly we need an intermediary, and a moron at that?
Your generalization:
"it's best not to experiment (i.e., dick) with the environment"
My generalization:
"It's also best not to dick with free enterprise"
I said more, which the moron snipped. If you
would go back to my complete response to your
response, maybe we could proceed from there,
without benefit of an intermediary moron, now that
you have received the guidance for which you
prayed.
calvin
I didn't mean no worse morally, moron. I meant no worse
logically. He made his generalization as if it was the word of God,
and then when I made my generalization, he started talking about
putting brakes on it. My response to that, which you butchered,
was to the effect that environmentalism is as prone to excess and
politics as any other ideology.
If you can't contribute, but can only butcher someone's
meanings, you should mind your own business.
trotsky
To quote Shakespeare: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing."
trotsky
> On Nov 23, 7:54 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> calvin wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 12:51 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 12:28 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 23, 12:20 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 12:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Whether the global warming threat is true or false, it is the
>>>>>>> greatest political boon for liberals the world has ever known.
>>>>>>> That alone should give anyone with a skeptical or cynical
>>>>>>> bent pause.
>>>>>> 'Pause'? Virtually any publicly expressed ideology nowadays should
>>>>>> give anyone full-stop. That's why I take the conservative position
>>>>>> that it's best not to experiment (i.e., dick) with the environment,
>>>>>> lest it return the favor...
>>>>> It's also best not to dick with free enterprise.
>>>> Free enterprise is indeed a powerful engine. That's precisely why it
>>>> needs a transmission... and brakes...
>>> I didn't say it didn't. My generalization was no worse than
>>> your generalization.
>> "I'm being just as shitty as you" is the typical GOP stance.
>
> I didn't mean no worse morally, moron.
Of course not--that's in keeping with your belonging to the "No we
can't" party.
I meant no worse
> logically.
So saying something better and more logical--hence more
constructive--was of no interest to you?
He made his generalization as if it was the word of God,
> and then when I made my generalization, he started talking about
> putting brakes on it. My response to that, which you butchered,
> was to the effect that environmentalism is as prone to excess and
> politics as any other ideology.
>
> If you can't contribute, but can only butcher someone's
> meanings, you should mind your own business.
Right back at ya, o logical one.
moviePig
His response was apt. I merely denied that I'd "generalized" in the
first place ...which I'd intended to let slide.
> Your generalization:
>
> "it's best not to experiment (i.e., dick) with the environment"
...is no generalization, at least in its obvious(?) context of 'the
environment as a poorly understood, yet vital and likely
irrecoverable, whole'.
> My generalization:
>
> "It's also best not to dick with free enterprise"
...exalts 'free enterprise' to life-blood stature (on a par with our
one and only global environment), rather than treating it as the
fundamental force of nature it is... one to be controlled and utilized
like any other potentially destructive force, rather than worshiped
and sacrosanctified like a white cow...
> ...
calvin
The moron's response was not apt, as I've already explained.
I totally disagree with your comments above, but I've had it
with the two of you in this thread. See you, perhaps, but
hopefully free of twotsky's involvement, in some other thread.
trotsky
calvin, you can't just egest a pile of dog turds and call it an explanation.
calvin
If you had read what your buddy trotsky ignored,
you would not have implied that I do what
follows your last comma, above. I think you
missed one of my posts in the sub-thread.
It's really pathetic when the two of you have to
distort and ignore what I say in order to make your
rebuttals.
Irish Mike
Well if we're quoting Shakespeare, I prefer "There is small choice in
rotten apples."
Although my personal favorite is the one by Irish Mike, "Global warming is
the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It makes Bernard
Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced cookies."
Irish Mike
-------�
moviePig
It was you who rebutted/equated my "generalization" with yours.
Claiming now that your quip was unfairly shorn of nuance flies only if
you (or anyone anywhere) truly thought that my warning about
environment-dicking suggests, say, razing Manhattan for a spotted-owl
refuge...
calvin
This is what you seem to have missed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free enterprise is indeed a powerful engine. That's precisely why it
> needs a transmission... and brakes...
I didn't say it didn't. My generalization was no worse than
your generalization. Environmentalism also needs brakes.
The cavemen dicked with the environment when they
provided food, clothing, and shelter for themselves. You
need to be reasonable about where to draw the line too.
You have as much obligation to pay attention to
environmentalism and its politics as you do to free
enterprise and its politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moviePig
I didn't miss it. You've said, "Let's all be reasonable", as though
someone might argue against 'reasonability' (...or *for* 'politics').
But, as I've explained, my wish not to risk toasting this particular
planet is neither a generalization nor political...
calvin
>
> > > Free enterprise is indeed a powerful engine. That's precisely why it
> > > needs a transmission... and brakes...
>
> > I didn't say it didn't. My generalization was no worse than
> > your generalization. Environmentalism also needs brakes.
> > The cavemen dicked with the environment when they
> > provided food, clothing, and shelter for themselves. You
> > need to be reasonable about where to draw the line too.
> > You have as much obligation to pay attention to
> > environmentalism and its politics as you do to free
> > enterprise and its politics.
>
> I didn't miss it. You've said, "Let's all be reasonable", as though
> someone might argue against 'reasonability' (...or *for* 'politics').
I didn't say "let's all be reasonable" (I know you didn't
mean it literally). I intended to convey "let's all be fair".
> But, as I've explained, my wish not to risk toasting this particular
> planet is neither a generalization nor political...
Of course it's political. You're not going to avoid
toasting the planet without politics. Sermons
don't count for anything.
It's about where to draw the line. You think I would
have the planet toasted in order to preserve free
enterprise? I said best what I meant to say in
what I reproduced above, so I won't try to say it
again.
In another thread, you never replied when I asked,
"What do you want to change?"
trotsky
Yes, well, apparently multiple tales told by idiots is possible.
trotsky
What? The minute any fetters are put on capitalism you say the perp is
a "socialist". You're either lying or stupid.
moviePig
I've forgotten its context, but probably thought the question
rhetorical.
calvin
> Indeed, we animals "fool" Mother Nature all the time. But, given the
> law of unintended consequences, are we wise to do it on a planetary --
> and potentially winner-take-all -- scale?...
What is it that you wish to change?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moviePig
I'm not sure what you're asking (...given I'm not carrying any large-
denomination currency). What changes do I permit myself? What
changes should society risk? What will I do when King? ... Other?
calvin
> On Nov 24, 2:50 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 2:06 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 24, 1:53 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > In another thread, you never replied when I asked,
> > > > "What do you want to change?"
> > > I've forgotten its context, but probably thought the question
> > > rhetorical.
> > > Indeed, we animals "fool" Mother Nature all the time. But, given the
> > > law of unintended consequences, are we wise to do it on a planetary --
> > > and potentially winner-take-all -- scale?...
>
> > What is it that you wish to change?
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking (...given I'm not carrying any large-
> denomination currency). What changes do I permit myself? What
> changes should society risk? What will I do when King? ... Other?
What will you do when King? (though the preceding choice
is more like what I had in mind originally)
moviePig
Well, I might look first at draconian and thoroughly privacy-invading
measures to enforce complete transparency of all communications
between purportedly independent public entities. (E.g., only across a
crowded cafeteria could your senator interact with even another
senator, much less a lobbyist...)
calvin
That might have prevented this past weekend's 'Louisiana
Purchase', but I'm not sure what effect it would have on
global warming. I thought that suposedly the evil of free
enterprise, even at its ideally uncorrupted best, still
destroys the planet, so I don't see how your forced
transparency would help. It would have prevented a host
of other calamities, though, including Enron and the
financial crisis that came to light last year, and ironically
the current 'bad scientist' scandal, not to mention the
so-called 'stimulus' legislation and the current healthcare
'reform' bill. Could even the half-passed 'cap and trade'
bill, meant to directly address global warming, have been
concocted under your regime? There's a mountain of irony
here.
Avoid normal situations.
> On Nov 23 2009 10:54 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
[..]
> "warming deniers". LMAO! Actually, I'm a "warming denier who believes
> the whole global warming scam is a large crock of pure bullshit." But if
> I'm a "warming denier" then you're a "left wing global warming hysterical
> moron". But this is a free country so by all means, put on your Al Gore
> tee shirt, turn off your furnace, hop on your bicycle and go peddle your
> gullible butt off to save the planet. Just remember to wave as ol' lard
> ass Al flies over in his private jet.
...and no actual cites, or cogent reasoning... just Limbaughshian spew.
You are a troll, and I claim my bulletproof tires for my ten-speed.
*plonk*
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have
existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in
the future." -- Max Planck