I am really glad that I voted for Donald Trump

[Ignoramus17700]

I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
reelection. Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
others.

i

[edhun...@gmail.com]

What makes you think you would know whether it's a hoax or not, Iggy? Where did you study climatology?

It used to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people would think they know the answer to this. Claiming you know that it's a "hoax" or not is one of the dumbest expressions of partisan negationism that we have seen in the past 50 years.

You don't know. You have no way of knowing. And you never will -- unless the water gets above your ankles. d8-)

Oh, and President Fubar is a lying and ignorant piece of shit.

--
Ed Huntress

[Neighborhood number 3]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:50:39 -0500, Ignoramus17700
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:

>I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
>reelection.

It's far from clear that he'll get the chance to run again. Lucky for
you, in his absence I'm sure you'll be able to vote for some other
serial liar.

> Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
>others.
>
>i

Well, certainly Drumpf, who earned his current position by appealing
to the base instincts of the grossly ignorant, and a scrapper who is
dedicated to living up to his nym of ignoramus, know a lot more about
climate science than the consensus of 97% of publishing climate
scientists. Right? LOL Enjoy your crackpot ideology, and being on
the wrong side of history while you can.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

[tyre biter]

On 6/4/2017 5:15 PM, Neighborhood number 3 wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:50:39 -0500, Ignoramus17700
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
>> reelection.
>
> It's far from clear that he'll get the chance to run again.

Given the rabid deep state, it's a possible take-down.

> Lucky for
> you, in his absence I'm sure you'll be able to vote for some other
> serial liar.

Like Shrillary, Pocahantas, Bernie?

>> Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
>> others.
>>
>> i
>
> Well, certainly Drumpf, who earned his current position by appealing
> to the base instincts of the grossly ignorant,

Thanks for denigrating displaced union workers, you asshole lib elitist
trashbag.

> and a scrapper who is
> dedicated to living up to his nym of ignoramus, know a lot more about
> climate science than the consensus of 97% of publishing climate
> scientists. Right?

Because peer herding is "science" in your insane mind.

> LOL Enjoy your crackpot ideology, and being on
> the wrong side of history while you can.
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the
petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

[Ignoramus17700]

On 2017-06-04, edhun...@gmail.com <edhun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:50:46 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus17700 wrote:
>> I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
>> reelection. Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
>> others.
>>
>> i
>
> What makes you think you would know whether it's a hoax or not,
> Iggy? Where did you study climatology?

I read a fair amount about history of Earth's climate.

Climate always changed violently, and swung far more than the feared
"climate change". Climate changed by 5-10 degrees C, causing
continents to become covered with ice, swamps, deserts, oceans receded
and reflooded by hundreds of meters, and so on. Millions of species
died off and new species appeared.

This will continue and instead of fearing it, we should adapt.

The tiny small changes being discussed are incomparably small and
conclusions about "climate change" lack certainty.

California used to whine how climate change caused their drought, now
they are whining how climate change causes too much rain and so
on.

> It used to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people would think
> they know the answer to this. Claiming you know that it's a "hoax"
> or not is one of the dumbest expressions of partisan negationism
> that we have seen in the past 50 years.
>
> You don't know. You have no way of knowing. And you never will --
> unless the water gets above your ankles. d8-)

There is a lot of uncertainty about future climate, the only thing
certain is that it will always change dramatically, like in the past.

> Oh, and President Fubar is a lying and ignorant piece of shit.

Definitely far from perfect, yes.

i

[John B.]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:50:39 -0500, Ignoramus17700
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:

Is it a really hoax? Or do you simply believe it is a hoax?
There is a difference you know.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Ignoramus17700]

I believe that it is a hoax. In 60 years we will know for sure.

i

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:50:39 -0500, Ignoramus17700
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:

Finally you admit this? Looking back at your posts before the
election and just afterwards...you were having reservations......


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ignoramus17700]

On 2017-06-05, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:50:39 -0500, Ignoramus17700
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
>>reelection. Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
>>others.
>>
>>i
>
>
> Finally you admit this? Looking back at your posts before the
> election and just afterwards...you were having reservations......

Yes, I had reservations.

i

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 16:15:37 -0700, Neighborhood number 3 <n...@af.net>
wrote:

(VBG)...and we are off to the races again!!

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

[edhun...@gmail.com]

You don't know that, and you have no way of knowing that. You've made your "hoax" conclusions because some financial interests have promoted selected, simplified science that's been chosen primarily to confound the assessment of real climatologists.

I don't know either, Iggy, although I tried a dozen years or so ago to figure it out. It was over my head. OTOH, I have a pretty good grip on quantum mechanics. When Larry coerced me into reading _State of Fear_, suggesting it was based on real science and I saw the ignorant way that the effects of carbon dioxide were discussed in that novel (it's a quantum mechanics issue, not a greenhouse analogy), I realized that the semi-educated were in real trouble with the whole issue, and were as vulnerable to bullshit denial "science" as babes in the woods.

So my conclusions are based on the fact that professional, trained scientists are usually right -- most of the human-created parts of our physical world are the result of them being right -- and that 97% of the REAL climatologists agree on the broad outline, and that the other 3% actually is somewhat below the usual crackpot percentage among scientists.

But that's all of a thread of hope that the partisan deniers need, broadcast effectively by contributions from the coal industry. And that's the fact.

>
> > Oh, and President Fubar is a lying and ignorant piece of shit.
>
> Definitely far from perfect, yes.

We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist, and we got what we should have expected.

A millionaire from birth, his only knowledge of working-class people is the ones who change the sheets in his hotels. But he has a sharp eye for a good con.

--
Ed Huntress

[Martin E]

And when he builds a building - he is there from beginning to end
meeting all the people that are using his money. Most of them are Blue
/ Black collar union guys.
Martin

[goodsoldi...@invalid.junk]

Average temperatures have risen across the contiguous 48 states since
1901, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Eight
of the top 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.
Average global temperatures show a similar trend, and all of the top
10 warmest years on record worldwide have occurred since 1998.

You don't think that the last 100 years might be a hint?
--
Cheers,

Schweik

[Martin E]

The island where we blasted off the ICBM look alike is 6' above mean
high tide. It isn't under water and the beaches are just like before.
If the water rose 6" the beaches would be eroded badly. But with record
snow on the poles the excess water gets stacked up. People freek out
over Greenland coming out from under the ice. Ice built up after WWII
and was at a peak in the late 1880's. It was a 'green' island and was
settled by Vikings and the mines in the high mountains for metals were
just re-discovered once the ice melted. The polution wasn't bad back in
the Viking days. Not many people.

Volcano's pollute the air far more than man. Man is small in CO2. The
Termite is far more dangerous in CO2 production in decaying forests.
Cows/4 stomach beasts produce plenty and exceed man as well.

The Amazon basin was stripped of trees, burned or sold and put into food
to sell to us. We make soy and gas corn anymore. The pacific weather
is created by the 'congo' line of TS (Tropical Storms) running across
the Tropics and are modified by the 'Nino's ' by the moisture/lack there
of from the jungle and the storms it generated once. Now mostly gone.
So environmental types have once again chose wrong and run wild over the
country.

Martin

[Martin E]

By 0.02 degrees. Wow that is rising fast. Wonder if the 10,000 oil
fires had anything to do with that or the European & Iceland / south
East Asian volcanoes have to do with warming / cooling.
Martin

[Larry Jaques]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 19:41:11 -0500, Ignoramus17700
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:

It's an extremist's idea of a scare tactic and a hoax. They're
responding to computer modeling which is being improperly programmed
and read. Algore stands to make billions if carbon is taxed, and he
has another movie coming out now. I can't believe anyone funded it
after all the legal dancing he did from the last one. British schools
banned it due to half a dozen outright fallacies it contained. And he
admitted that he lied about the polar bear drownings. But the Left
has it as a religion, so we're either Bleevers or Deniers, and (since
there is no God to lefties) Dog help us if we're tagged as Deniers!

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

[Larry Jaques]

Yabbut, ask a Leftist about cow farts. They're evil, I tell ya.
"Search Results
How much greenhouse gas does a volcano produce?
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide."

(And this is on a normal year, not an eruption year folks.) So tell
me that the Paris Accord is going to make a difference. I dare ya.

>The Amazon basin was stripped of trees, burned or sold and put into food
>to sell to us. We make soy and gas corn anymore. The pacific weather
>is created by the 'congo' line of TS (Tropical Storms) running across
>the Tropics and are modified by the 'Nino's ' by the moisture/lack there
>of from the jungle and the storms it generated once. Now mostly gone.
>So environmental types have once again chose wrong and run wild over the
>country.

Why aren't all the countries in the world shipping topsoil to Brazil?
Y'know, so the farmers don't kill thousands of acres of trees every
year to get a farm which only produces for one year, due to the poor
soil under the tropical rainforests. It would slow down the weather
(yes, weather) shifts.

[Larry Jaques]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 18:10:55 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 16:15:37 -0700, Neighborhood number 3 <n...@af.net>
>wrote:

--snip of nothings--

PDFTFT.

[goodsoldi...@invalid.junk]

Actually it is a 1.4 degree (F) increase (since 1880) and 2/3rds of
the warming has occurred since 1975.. Whether that is a lot or not is,
I guess, subject to discussion.

"A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast
amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that
much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge
the Earth into the Little Ice Age."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

As to why, one can only speculate whether it is 10,000 oil fires or
the fact that in 1950 the world population has ~2.5 billion and today
it is ~7.5 billion? Or maybe it is autos. In 1960 there were 71
million registered motor vehicles in the U.S., in 2014 there were 260
million. Or even volcano eruptions: "The most widely accepted
scientific database for volcanic eruption data is Simithsonian's
Global Volcanism Program (GVP). For example, 43 confirmed and one
uncertain eruptions are listed here for 2015, a rather typical (if not
below average) year of volcanic activity".
--
Cheers,

Schweik

[goodsoldi...@invalid.junk]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:23:08 -0500, Martin E
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>On 6/4/2017 7:41 PM, Ignoramus17700 wrote:
>> On 2017-06-05, John B <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:50:39 -0500, Ignoramus17700
>>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
>>>> reelection. Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> i
>>> Is it a really hoax? Or do you simply believe it is a hoax?
>>> There is a difference you know.
>>
>> I believe that it is a hoax. In 60 years we will know for sure.
>>
>> i
>>
>The island where we blasted off the ICBM look alike is 6' above mean
>high tide. It isn't under water and the beaches are just like before.
>If the water rose 6" the beaches would be eroded badly. But with record
>snow on the poles the excess water gets stacked up. People freek out
>over Greenland coming out from under the ice. Ice built up after WWII
>and was at a peak in the late 1880's. It was a 'green' island and was
>settled by Vikings and the mines in the high mountains for metals were
>just re-discovered once the ice melted. The polution wasn't bad back in
>the Viking days. Not many people.

What island where we blasted off the ICBM? Do you mean Enewetak
Atoll"? The mean height above sea level, of Enewetak and Parry islands
is 10 ft.

But from The Economist, Aug 29th 2013:
The evidence for sea-level rise is strong. Tidal gauges suggest that
the world's oceans have risen by 1.77 millimetres a year since 1950.
Satellite evidence points to around double that rate in the western
Pacific Ocean over the past two decades. Measurements from Funafuti,
the capital of Tuvalu, indicate an increase of 5 millimetres a year
over the past 60 years. 5 x 60 = 300, about one foot.

>
>Volcano's pollute the air far more than man. Man is small in CO2. The
>Termite is far more dangerous in CO2 production in decaying forests.
>Cows/4 stomach beasts produce plenty and exceed man as well.
>
>The Amazon basin was stripped of trees, burned or sold and put into food
>to sell to us. We make soy and gas corn anymore. The pacific weather
>is created by the 'congo' line of TS (Tropical Storms) running across
>the Tropics and are modified by the 'Nino's ' by the moisture/lack there
>of from the jungle and the storms it generated once. Now mostly gone.
>So environmental types have once again chose wrong and run wild over the
>country.
>
>Martin

--
Cheers,

Schweik

[goodsoldi...@invalid.junk]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:53:46 -0700, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 18:10:55 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 16:15:37 -0700, Neighborhood number 3 <n...@af.net>
>>wrote:
>
>--snip of nothings--
>
>PDFTFT.

I believe that your signature quotation is wrong as Gautama Buddha
died about 2,500 years ago and not a lot of people were reading in
those days.

http://fakebuddhaquotes.com
(your quotation is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta, so bad, in
fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that
reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the
truth.)

Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

--
Cheers,

Schweik

[Jim Wilkins]

"Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote in message
news:g7o9jcduhen351voj...@4ax.com...

http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/06/only-53-of-climatologists-meteorologists-36-of-engineers-geoscientists-19-of-agronomists-are-climate-consensus-believers/

"Chemical engineers have more qualifications and experience (eg
thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, fluid dynamics, reaction
kinetic, mathematics, dimensional analysis, statistics,
instrumentation and control etc) than anyone else in world to be able
to assess atmospheric changes. From my knowledge of chemical engineers
the proportion that would support that humans have some influence over
climate changes would be close to zero."

Chemists also learn how to make accurate measurements under difficult
conditions, a skill that's glaringly lacking in the weather data sets
climate change prediction is based on. You can't legitimately derive
0.01 degree results from +/-1 degree data.

The scientists who started this weren't "climatologists", they were
astrophysicists trying to model the atmosphere of Venus.

Dissent from the left is sacred, but from the right is heresy.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oh3hkc$36h$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote in message
> news:g7o9jcduhen351voj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 19:41:11 -0500, Ignoramus17700
>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2017-06-05, John B <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:50:39 -0500, Ignoramus17700
>>>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.17700.invalid> wrote:
>>>>

> ...

> Dissent from the left is sacred, but from the right is heresy.
>

Whether or not climate change is real, the promotion of it is a
desperate quest for respect by the doomtards whose Peak Oil forecast
failed them.

https://energyindepth.org/national/discredited-peak-oil-enthusiasts-make-up-natures-experts/

[John B.]

In a sense it doesn't make any difference who says what to who as
without doubt the world is getting warmer and if carbon emission is
the cause then it would be extremely unlikely that anyone will
willingly give up their present share of these emissions.

The U.S., for example, has far and away the highest per capita
emission rate but any mention of "only one car per family" or "why do
you need a dish washer" is met with loud cries "I need two cars", "I
need a dish washer".

The truth is that no one will willingly give up his/her/their present
"luxuries" whether they be some poor coolie in Asia that has just made
the down payment on his new 100 cc motorcycle or the family with 2
cars or the dishwashers, or the air conditioners or any of the other
"necessities" that "progress" has given us.

In 1950 there were an estimated 2,556,000,053 people in the world, in
2000 there were 6,082,966,429, in 2050 an estimated 9,346,399,468. And
every single one of them wants their fair share.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jdkajcps3i4gbqp3s...@4ax.com...

Not everyone, my electricity consumption is about 1/4 of the average
for this area and my heat in a cold climate is all renewable, much of
it salvaged logging slash.

[Neighborhood number 3]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 18:10:35 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:


>There is no consensus
>The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the
>petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
>release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause
>catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

That's not much more than a joke designed to provide a rationalization
for ignorant ideology, like yours.

http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Chemical engineers typically have no training in complex fluid dynamics. They're interested in how fluids behave in a pipe. The anonymous author of that "comment" is full of it.

The ones who *do* have that training are particular species of mechanical engineers.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 6/4/2017 6:14 PM, Ignoramus17700 wrote:
>> Oh, and President Fubar is a lying and ignorant piece of shit.
> Definitely far from perfect, yes.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed = perfect.

Now fuck off and die!

[tyre biter]

On 6/4/2017 7:21 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,

Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.

[Balthazar Jones]

100 years on one continent does not a climate make, you MORON!

[Balthazar Jones]

On 6/4/2017 11:59 PM, goodsoldi...@invalid.junk wrote:
> As to why, one can only speculate whether it is 10,000 oil fires or
> the fact that in 1950 the world population has ~2.5 billion and today
> it is ~7.5 billion? Or maybe it is autos.

Or maybe it's just the last hurrah of a warming trend set to end very
soon and usher in an overdue ice age, you ignoramus!


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/02/04/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-soon-says-math-professors-solar-cycle-model-thats-97-accurate/

A few months ago, NASA published a study showing that Antarctica is
actually gaining more ice than it is losing. They made the announcement
after using satellites to examine the heights of the region’s ice sheet.
The findings contradict the prevailing theory that Antarctica has
actually been shrinking, however. The paper is titled “Mass gains of the
Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses” and was published in the Journal of
Glaciology.

[tyre biter]

On 6/5/2017 8:31 AM, Neighborhood number 3 wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 18:10:35 -0600, tyre biter <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>
>
>> There is no consensus
>> The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the
>> petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
>> release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause
>> catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)
>
> That's not much more than a joke

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/723481/Earth-ICE-AGE-big-freeze-solar-activity

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

Congratulations then terrorist supporter, YOU are a traitor to America.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Aside from your lack of good insults, you have a deep logic problem, Biter. Read what you just said: people who aren't traitors vote for frauds and con-men.

Is it related to your Tourette syndrome, or just low IQ? Either way, you should get away from your keyboard. You look dumber, weaker, and crazier with each post.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 6/5/2017 11:17 AM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:33:02 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
>> On 6/5/2017 9:59 AM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:21:10 AM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2017 7:21 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,
>>>>
>>>> Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.
>>>
>>> Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.
>>>
>>
>> Congratulations then terrorist supporter, YOU are a traitor to America.
>
> Aside from your lack of good insults

Congratulations Crazy Eddy, you voted for America to FAIL!

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
> On 6/5/2017 11:17 AM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:33:02 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
> >> On 6/5/2017 9:59 AM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:21:10 AM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
> >>>> On 6/4/2017 7:21 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,
> >>>>
> >>>> Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.
> >>>
> >>> Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Congratulations then terrorist supporter, YOU are a traitor to America.
> >

> > Aside from your lack of good insults, you have a deep logic problem, Biter. Read what you just said: people who aren't traitors vote for frauds and con-men.

Is it related to your Tourette syndrome, or just low IQ? Either way, you should get away from your keyboard. You look dumber, weaker, and crazier with each post.

>

> Congratulations Crazy Eddy, you voted for America to FAIL!

As I said, it may be your Tourette, or maybe you're just too stupid to realize that you're digging your hole deeper with each post.

--
Ed Huntress

[dca...@krl.org]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,
> >
> > Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.
>
> Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

So you voted for a con-woman instead.

Dan

[Rudy Canoza]

I didn't vote for either. I knew that either one would be a catastrophe
for the country. The damage from Clinton would have been not as obvious
but longer lasting.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

In the lie department, fact checkers are collecting over 200 per month from Trump. He's at least 10 times worse than Clinton would have been.

As for competency, there's no contest. He's a complete fraud and a know-nothing. He just knows how to run a con, and he's conned almost half the country.

But they're catching on. His approval ratings have nudged below 40 and his disapproval is in the mid-50s. That's cutting into the edges of his base.

--
Ed Huntress

[edhun...@gmail.com]

The problem with Clinton would have been an absolute, incalcitrant obstruction from Congress. I don't think she has the LBJ-style ability to strong-arm Congress. She would have been dead in the water and the resistance to her would have kept building.

One thing the Republicans have gotten good at over the past 20 - 30 years: blaming the other side for their own mistakes and transgressions.

As painful as it is, it may be better to have Trump in there, where his weaknesses and failures will eventually become obvious.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 6/5/2017 12:03 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> You look dumber, weaker, and crazier with each post.

Mubwhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

[tyre biter]

Crazy Eddy prolly went for Bernie.

[Fletch]

On 6/5/2017 12:36 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> I didn't vote for either.

5327 Shepard Ave, Sacramento, CA 95819
3 beds 2 baths 1,732 sqft
acts and Features

Type
Single Family

Year Built
1952

Heating
Other

Cooling
Central

Parking
2 spaces

Lot
7,405 sqft

Last Transfer Date Mon Feb 27 2012
Last Transfer Type GRANT DEED/CORP. DEED/GIFT DEED/JNT TEN DEED
County Recorder's Document Number Book 20120227, Page 885

Recorded Map Book/Page S030034 - Final Map Book 30, Page 34
Recorded Map Name RIVER PARK 04

https://www.arivify.com/property/search/Lj5tUOUy7

Owner Name Jonathan Ball
Address 5327 Shepard Ave
City Sacramento
State CA
Zip Code 95819
Land Use Resid. Single Family
Land Size 0.168 acres
Appraised Value $420130
Assessed Value $420130
Legal Description Sac:00501110170000

http://reach150.com/solarcity-northern-california/review/62015/jonathan-ball

Jonathan Ball
Field Energy Consultant SolarCity Northern California
Sacramento, CA

Recommendations

Be the first to leave a recommendation for Jonathan Ball.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-ball-271869132

[tyre biter]

On 6/5/2017 12:52 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:08:53 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,
>>>>
>>>> Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.
>>>
>>> Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>> So you voted for a con-woman instead.
>>
>> Dan
>
> In the lie department, fact checkers are collecting over 200 per month from Trump.

Libitards don't DO facts, Crazy Eddy, you Goddmaned traitor!

[edhun...@gmail.com]

> Libitards don't DO facts, Crazy Eddy, and I'm a Goddmaned traitor!

If you think I'm a liberal, you're an even bigger asshole than you appear to be.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

On 6/5/2017 1:23 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:12:34 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
>> On 6/5/2017 12:52 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:08:53 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>
>>>> So you voted for a con-woman instead.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>> In the lie department, fact checkers are collecting over 200 per month from Trump.
>>

>> Libitards don't DO facts, Crazy Eddy, and you're a Goddmaned traitor!

>
> If you think I'm a liberal, you're an even bigger asshole than you appear to be.

Voted for Shrillary = traitor.

[rangerssuck]

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 8:14:45 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus17700 wrote:
> On 2017-06-04, edhun...@gmail.com <edhun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:50:46 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus17700 wrote:
> >> I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
> >> reelection. Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
> >> others.
> >>
> >> i
> >

> > What makes you think you would know whether it's a hoax or not,
> > Iggy? Where did you study climatology?
>
> I read a fair amount about history of Earth's climate.

You couldn't POSSIBLY understand even a tiny percentage of the data. Neither can Trump, nor any other politician. That's why we have scientists. I was talking with a friend of mine who has a PhD in climatology a while back. I asked her what math courses she had taken to earn her degree. She recited a long list of course names I had never even heard of, ending with, "But I'd really like to take some more advanced courses so I could really understand this stuff."

It's just not nearly as simple as you want to think, Iggy. You simply don't know enough about it (nor does anyone here) to form an independent opinion.

[rangerssuck]

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 11:10:21 PM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:

> On 6/4/2017 8:21 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 8:14:45 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus17700 wrote:
> >> On 2017-06-04, edhun...@gmail.com <edhun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:50:46 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus17700 wrote:
> >>>> I would have voted for him again and will, when he comes up for
> >>>> reelection. Greatly enjoying him trashing the climate change hoax and
> >>>> others.
> >>>>
> >>>> i
> >>>
> >>> What makes you think you would know whether it's a hoax or not,
> >>> Iggy? Where did you study climatology?
> >>
> >> I read a fair amount about history of Earth's climate.
> >>

> >> Climate always changed violently, and swung far more than the feared
> >> "climate change". Climate changed by 5-10 degrees C, causing
> >> continents to become covered with ice, swamps, deserts, oceans receded
> >> and reflooded by hundreds of meters, and so on. Millions of species
> >> died off and new species appeared.
> >>
> >> This will continue and instead of fearing it, we should adapt.
> >>
> >> The tiny small changes being discussed are incomparably small and
> >> conclusions about "climate change" lack certainty.
> >>
> >> California used to whine how climate change caused their drought, now
> >> they are whining how climate change causes too much rain and so
> >> on.
> >>
> >>> It used to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people would think
> >>> they know the answer to this. Claiming you know that it's a "hoax"
> >>> or not is one of the dumbest expressions of partisan negationism
> >>> that we have seen in the past 50 years.
> >>>
> >>> You don't know. You have no way of knowing. And you never will --
> >>> unless the water gets above your ankles. d8-)
> >>
> >> There is a lot of uncertainty about future climate, the only thing
> >> certain is that it will always change dramatically, like in the past.
> >
> > You don't know that, and you have no way of knowing that. You've made your "hoax" conclusions because some financial interests have promoted selected, simplified science that's been chosen primarily to confound the assessment of real climatologists.
> >
> > I don't know either, Iggy, although I tried a dozen years or so ago to figure it out. It was over my head. OTOH, I have a pretty good grip on quantum mechanics. When Larry coerced me into reading _State of Fear_, suggesting it was based on real science and I saw the ignorant way that the effects of carbon dioxide were discussed in that novel (it's a quantum mechanics issue, not a greenhouse analogy), I realized that the semi-educated were in real trouble with the whole issue, and were as vulnerable to bullshit denial "science" as babes in the woods.
> >
> > So my conclusions are based on the fact that professional, trained scientists are usually right -- most of the human-created parts of our physical world are the result of them being right -- and that 97% of the REAL climatologists agree on the broad outline, and that the other 3% actually is somewhat below the usual crackpot percentage among scientists.
> >
> > But that's all of a thread of hope that the partisan deniers need, broadcast effectively by contributions from the coal industry. And that's the fact.

> >
> >>
> >>> Oh, and President Fubar is a lying and ignorant piece of shit.
> >>
> >> Definitely far from perfect, yes.
> >

> > We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist, and we got what we should have expected.
> >
> > A millionaire from birth, his only knowledge of working-class people is the ones who change the sheets in his hotels. But he has a sharp eye for a good con.
> >
> And when he builds a building - he is there from beginning to end
> meeting all the people that are using his money. Most of them are Blue
> / Black collar union guys.
> Martin

And he has a documented history of not paying his contractors. What's your point?

[Balthazar Jones]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/scientist-predicts-little-ice-age-gets-icey-reception-from-colleagues/

Professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University is being attacked
by climate change proponents for publishing research suggesting there
could be a 35-year period of low solar activity that could usher in an
“ice age.”

Zharkova and her team of researchers released a study on sunspot
modeling, finding that solar activity could fall to levels not seen
since the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the 1600s. Zharkova’s
conclusions may have huge implications for global temperature modeling,
but her analysis is not accepted by some climate scientists.

“Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite
— I would say — pushy,” she told The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
in an interview on her solar study.

In fact, Zharkova said some scientists even tried to have her research
suppressed.

“They were trying to actually silence us,” she said. “Some of them
contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back,
that they withdraw our press release.”

Zharkova found that solar activity is driven by two magnetic waves from
within the sun that can either dampen or amplify solar activity. Solar
activity is believed to play a role in warming and cooling average
global temperature.

Zharkova’s team incorporated solar data into predictive models and found
that the sun is heading into a period of low solar activity similar to
the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600s. During this time, scientists
believe low solar activity contributed to cooler average global temperature.

“Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun,
then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder
Minimum,” she said. “At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this
temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many
measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen
with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well
protocoled.”

“The rivers are frozen,” she added. “There are winters and no summers,
and so on.”

The so-called “Little Ice Age” is a controversial topic among
scientists. Some argue low solar activity contributed to cooler
temperatures over Europe and North America, but others argue volcanic
activity drove temperatures lower since the trend began before solar
activity fell.

Climate scientists were quick to ask the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical
Society to suppress Zharkova’s findings.

“The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said,
‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss
this with them,’” Zharkova told the GWPF.

“We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my
point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing
to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to
us,” she said. “So how this is transformed into climate we do not
produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with
you, and add to your data our results.

“So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve.
Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to,” she said.

Zharkova isn’t the first to suggest a period of low solar activity is on
the way that could cause a cooling trend. Solar activity was reportedly
at a 200-year low in February.

A July 2015 study by Jorge Sanchez-Sesma at the Mexican Institute of
Water Technology found the oscillations in the amount of sunlight
reaching the Earth could have a much bigger cooling impact on the
climate than previous estimates by climate scientists.

Sanchez-Sesma examined solar cycle data going back 100,000 years and
compared them to about 25,000 years of surface air temperature data in
the Congo River Basin and found that “information from reconstructions
and models indicates a potential continental tropical temperature
cooling of around 0.5oC for the rest of the 21st century.”

Shrinivas Aundhkar, director of India’s Mahatma Gandhi Mission at the
Centre for Astronomy and Space Technology, said in 2015 that declining
solar activity could mean a “mini ice age-like situation” is on the way.

In 2013, Professor Cliff Ollier t the University of Western Australia
posited low solar activity could bring cool the planet.

“There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate,” Ollier
wrote. “Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction.”

“Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many
think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific
predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer
models,” he wrote.

Russian scientists argued in 2012 the world could expect the start of
the another Little Ice Age starting in 2014.

“After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can
expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote
Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science.

[tyre biter]

Bankruptcies generally favor the bond holders, dipshit.

> What's your point?


Why is your head flat and empty?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/5/2017 11:59 AM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:36:41 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/5/2017 11:08 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.
>>>>
>>>> Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>
>>> So you voted for a con-woman instead.
>>
>> I didn't vote for either. I knew that either one would be a catastrophe
>> for the country. The damage from Clinton would have been not as obvious
>> but longer lasting.
>
> The problem with Clinton would have been an absolute, incalcitrant obstruction from Congress. I don't think she has the LBJ-style ability to strong-arm Congress. She would have been dead in the water and the resistance to her would have kept building.

One problem with Clinton is she would have been unable to fill the
Supreme Court vacancy. Everyone she would have nominated would have
been worse than Kagan and the "wise lah-TEE-nah" combined. Anyone she
got through for that seat, as well as the expected vacancy when Ginsburg
quit or croaked, would turn out to be a sleeper Stevens or Souter.
Unacceptable.

Say what you want about Republicans not following through with their
small-government talk - Clinton engaged in big-bigger-biggest government
talk every time she opened her mouth, and she *WOULD* have followed
through with it. Clinton is the worst big-government statist ever to
run for the presidency. For that alone, I'm glad she lost.

> One thing the Republicans have gotten good at over the past 20 - 30 years: blaming the other side for their own mistakes and transgressions.
>
> As painful as it is, it may be better to have Trump in there, where his weaknesses and failures will eventually become obvious.

They already are.

[rangerssuck]

I'm not talking about bankruptcies. I'm talking about simply not paying his bills.

[Fletch]

On 6/5/2017 2:07 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Say what you want

[tyre biter]

Then you're LYING, period.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:26:25 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
> On 6/5/2017 1:23 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:12:34 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
> >> On 6/5/2017 12:52 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:08:53 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:49 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> We elected an emotionally disturbed narcissist,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well at least you voted FOR him then, Crazy Eddy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not me, pard'. I don't vote for frauds and con-man.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ed Huntress
> >>>>
> >>>> So you voted for a con-woman instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan
> >>>
> >>> In the lie department, fact checkers are collecting over 200 per month from Trump.
> >>

> >> Libitards don't DO facts, Crazy Eddy, and I'm a Goddmaned traitor!

> >
> > If you think I'm a liberal, you're an even bigger asshole than you appear to be.
>
> Voted for Shrillary = traitor.

As I said, you're an asshole.

...and an aspiring, but not very successful, troll.

--
Ed Huntress

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Finally, a voice of reason. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[rangerssuck]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 4:21:09 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
> On 6/5/2017 2:09 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-4, tyre biter wrote:
> >> On 6/5/2017 1:31 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 11:10:21 PM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
> >>>> On 6/4/2017 8:21 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:

[ ]

> >>>>> A millionaire from birth, his only knowledge of working-class people is the ones who change the sheets in his hotels. But he has a sharp eye for a good con.
> >>>>>
> >>>> And when he builds a building - he is there from beginning to end
> >>>> meeting all the people that are using his money. Most of them are Blue
> >>>> / Black collar union guys.
> >>>> Martin
> >>>
> >>> And he has a documented history of not paying his contractors.
> >>
> >> Bankruptcies generally favor the bond holders, dipshit.
> >
> > I'm not talking about bankruptcies. I'm talking about simply not paying his bills.
> >
> >

> Then you're LYING, period.

No. If you don't know what I'm referring to, that does not make me a liar, it makes you uninformed. Take a look at this, and then get back to me with your excuses for each of the documented cases of Trump skipping out on a legitimate debt: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

[tyre biter]

Yet you sold us out, not me.

> ...and an aspiring, but not very successful, troll.

I got you babe!

[tyre biter]

"Allege" - where's the proof?

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Delusional, too.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

Yet here you are - as noted.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

It's fun to watch you humiliate yourself with stupidity and ignorance, kicking your butt the way all trolls deserve to be kicked.

And the fact that you're not very bright or imaginative makes it easy.

You're really a failed troll, Biter.

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

There are those delusions of adequacy again, Crazy Eddy.

> And the fact that you're not very bright or imaginative makes it easy.
>
> You're really a failed troll, Biter.

I am loving the mockery I have made of you.

Btw, remember when you used to talk metalworking?

Mmmm hmmm...

All gone.

-poof!

I win.

[Rudy Canoza]

You won the larger game of life over this worthless ass-suck spammy
decades ago, but you can't beat him at this game and it isn't worth
trying. It comes down to one basic fact: his time is worth nothing and
he has nothing better to do, while your time is worth something and you
have plenty better to do.

Meanwhile, I have some solar panels and some skin care products to sell,
so I'm going to have to step away for a while.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

I've bantered with a few trolls here over the years, and it's not really a game to be won or lost. They think it is, but they're all fucked up in the head, one way or another.

To me, it's more of an exploration of their weirdness and perversions. Some of them are pretty clever; sick, but clever. This one is a dim bulb and has no self-respect whatsoever, and he keeps running out of gas. He tries to dominate with some "fact," he fails, and then he starts with the homoerotic slurs, the last refuge of the truly stupid.

It looks like he has no place else to go, and he's become boring. But we'll see what he does.

--
Ed Huntress

[rangerssuck]

Read the article. There are judgements for non-payment against Trump.

[tyre biter]

LOLOLOL!!!

This from little man Ball the 24/7/365 stalker troll of ueslessnet?

It is to laugh!

Richly laugh.

> Meanwhile, I have some solar panels and some skin care products to sell,
> so I'm going to have to step away for a while.

You do that Jonathan, and have a nice day!

[tyre biter]

On 6/5/2017 4:01 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> He tries to dominate with some "fact,"

Crazy Eddy eschews "facts", like any true leftard.

[tyre biter]

Then justice is served, next!

[edhun...@gmail.com]

And here's your trophy!

https://me.me/i/head-up-your-ass-award-via-9gag-com-11156677

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

No, no, no...that's the Obummer Award!

[edhun...@gmail.com]

And here's a story about your girlfriend:

"I can't stop eating TIRES! Woman addicted to rubber consumes two feet of shavings a day"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289526/I-stop-eating-TIRES-Woman-rubber-addiction-consumes-feet-shavings-day-good-job-fiance-works-tire-factory.html

or

https://tinyurl.com/m8r7wph

--
Ed Huntress

[tyre biter]

---yawn---

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Aw, Biter must have missed his widdle nappy today. Go curl up with your tire-eating girlfriend, Biter. Don't let her go...you're not likely to find another one who shares your eating habits.

--
Ed Huntress