The solid Scientific Consensus on climate change -2 hours ago

[Doug Bashford]

The solid scientific consensus on climate change
-2 hours ago

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average air
and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."

Also:

"Global GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions due to human
activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an
increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004. Global atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane) and
N2O (nitrous oxide) have increased markedly as a result of
human activities since 1750 and now far exceed
pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning
many thousands of years."

And:

"The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005
exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to
fossil fuel use."

While some argue that there is still a debate among the
world's major climate scientists regarding the cause of
global warming, the IPCC states this:

• There is very high confidence that the global average net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of
warming.
• Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due
to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG
concentrations.
• It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent
(except Antarctica).
• Discernible human influences extend beyond average
temperature to other aspects of climate, including
temperature extremes and wind patterns.

In 2007, the IPCC also reported, "Anthropogenic warming over
the last three decades has likely had a discernible
influence at the global scale on observed changes in many
physical and biological systems."

The IPCC is a "scientific intergovernmental body"
established by all the Earth's governments including the
United States when Ronald Reagan was our president. "Its
mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments
of current scientific, technical and socio-economic
information worldwide about the risk of climate change
caused by human activity, its potential environmental and
socio-economic consequences, and possible options for
adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects."

Thousands of independent climate scientists from all across
our planet have been meeting on an annual basis for nearly
25 years and have produced the most comprehensive,
conservative and collaborative reports on any scientific
topic in the history of science. These top scientists from
the world's most prestigious universities and governmental
agencies review all the current studies regarding our
climate and produce summary reports that this body of
scientists review, discuss, dissect, edit and ultimately
agree to support.

These reports are then turned over to representatives from
every government on Earth, including the United States.
These political officials then review, discuss, dissect,
edit and ultimately agree to support these comprehensive
scientific documents. .......
......snip

....This is not disputed within the scientific community
although it remains a hotly debated *political* topic.

"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the
Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is
more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through
activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil
fuels. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis
reports, scientific bodies of national or international
standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists.
Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories
contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their
peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective
agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these
high level reports and surveys."

================

Responsible people trust Science more than
lobbyests and talk show hosts, but others
are Republicans.

[alanm...@yahoo.com]

On Aug 23, 2:36 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
> The solid scientific consensus on climate change
> -2 hours ago
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said:
>
> "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
> evident from observations of increases in global average air
> and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
> and rising global average sea level."
>
>

(cut)
So you think global warming is real and serious. What are you doing
about it?
How do you earn a living without producing plenty of CO2?
If you thing CAGW is a serious reality, why are you wasting CO2
operating a computer when you could be going around vandalizing power
plants in an effort to save the world by putting us back in the middle
ages?
- A. McIntire

[Tunderbar]

On Aug 23, 4:36 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
> The solid scientific consensus on climate change
> -2 hours ago
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said:

The IPCC/WWF/Greenpeace organisation got fully 30% of it's "science"
from grey material, in direct violation of its own rules.

And you still insist on using it as an authority on climate change?

LOL.

[Claudius Denk]

On Aug 23, 7:09 am, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> . . . why are you wasting CO2

> operating a computer when you could be going around vandalizing power
> plants in an effort to save the world by putting us back in the middle
> ages?
> - A. McIntire

Let's not give these whackjobs any ideas.

[Claudius Denk]

On Aug 23, 2:36 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
> The solid scientific consensus on climate change
> -2 hours ago
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said:
>
> "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,

If it is unequivocal then why are you equivocating?

> as is now
> evident from observations of increases in global average air
> and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
> and rising global average sea level."

Isn't this basically the same argument people have to the existence of
God?

> Also:
>
> "Global GHG (greenhouse gas)

The tern "greenhouse gas" is a ethereal notion. Nobody knows how to
define it or measure it.

> emissions due to human
> activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an
> increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004. Global atmospheric
> concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane) and
> N2O (nitrous oxide) have increased markedly as a result of
> human activities since 1750 and now far exceed
> pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning
> many thousands of years."

These assertions are inconsequential in light of the fact that CO2
forcing is immeasurable.

> And:
>
> "The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005
> exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
> Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to
> fossil fuel use."
>
> While some argue that there is still a debate among the
> world's major climate scientists regarding the cause of
> global warming, the IPCC states this:
>
> • There is very high confidence that the global average net
> effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of
> warming.

How can one have high confidence in something the basis of which they
refuse to discuss?

[3149 Dead]

Not one, but TWO ignorant, paranoid corporate apologists!

Our cup runneth over!

[Doug Bashford]

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Re: The solid Scientific
Consensus on climate change -2 hours ago;

Typical "logic" of science deniers.
There is none, it's all feelsgoodism,
kneejerkism, and free talk show "education."
Those poor kneejerk kids have been trained to
see only an oversimplified, bifurcated world
of pure Evil, pure Goodness, Go Good Team Go!
Death to Evil!

So in their oversimplified, bifurcated world,
anybody who uses even a computer has no right
to recognize, nor be concerned about Global
Warming. (as above argument) Normal people
see that and think, "Wow that's lame, invalid logic,
these guys are really grasping at straws...they
must think the audience is stooopid!" But that's
not what's happening. They are NOT trying to
fool people with that "reasoning!" In fact,
they actually believe it themselves!

For them the world is pure black or pure white.
Fact is, they are not bright enough to recognize
and comprehend a world where greys exist, much
less our complex, colorful world.

Of course this only one example of talk show
"education," -- of turning the often boring, often
complex world that our founding fathers demanded
we govern, into a simple, ratings-based cartoon.


."People deserve the government they get,
and they deserve to get it good and hard."
H.L. Mencken (1880 1956)

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

[Tracey12]

On Aug 23, 4:36 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:

> Responsible people trust Science more than
> lobbyests and talk show hosts, but others
> are Republicans.

Do all scientists suddenly all agree on this issue? Of course not.
Therefore, there is no consensus among them.

[3149 Dead]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:38:27 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:

> On Aug 23, 2:36 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
>> The solid scientific consensus on climate change -2 hours ago
>>
>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said:
>>
>> "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,
>
> If it is unequivocal then why are you equivocating?
>
>> as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air
>> and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising
>> global average sea level."
>
> Isn't this basically the same argument people have to the existence of
> God?
>
>> Also:
>>
>> "Global GHG (greenhouse gas)
>
> The tern "greenhouse gas" is a ethereal notion. Nobody knows how to
> define it or measure it.

We know exactly what greenhouse gases are. Water vapour, carbon dioxide
and methane are the best-known, and their properties are exactly
understoon.

>
>> emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial
>> times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004. Global
>> atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane) and
>> N2O (nitrous oxide) have increased markedly as a result of human
>> activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
>> determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years."
>
> These assertions are inconsequential in light of the fact that CO2
> forcing is immeasurable.
>

Except that we ARE measuring it.

>> And:
>>
>> "The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far
>> the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2
>> concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use."
>>
>> While some argue that there is still a debate among the world's major
>> climate scientists regarding the cause of global warming, the IPCC
>> states this:
>>
>> • There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of
>> human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
>
> How can one have high confidence in something the basis of which they
> refuse to discuss?

Um, you're trying to tell us nobody is discussing global warming?

[Claudius Denk]

On Aug 23, 10:35 am, 3149 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:38:27 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2:36 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
> >> The solid scientific consensus on climate change -2 hours ago
>
> >> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said:
>
> >> "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,
>
> > If it is unequivocal then why are you equivocating?
>
> >> as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air
> >> and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising
> >> global average sea level."
>
> > Isn't this basically the same argument people have to the existence of
> > God?
>
> >> Also:
>
> >> "Global GHG (greenhouse gas)
>
> > The tern "greenhouse gas" is a ethereal notion.  Nobody knows how to
> > define it or measure it.
>
> We know exactly what greenhouse gases are.  Water vapour, carbon dioxide
> and methane are the best-known, and their properties are exactly

> understood.

How is CO2 forcing measured?

>
> >> emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial
> >> times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004. Global
> >> atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane) and
> >> N2O (nitrous oxide) have increased markedly as a result of human
> >> activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
> >> determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years."
>
> > These assertions are inconsequential in light of the fact that CO2
> > forcing is immeasurable.
>
> Except that we ARE measuring it.

Prove it.

>
> >> And:
>
> >> "The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far
> >> the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2
> >> concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use."
>
> >> While some argue that there is still a debate among the world's major
> >> climate scientists regarding the cause of global warming, the IPCC
> >> states this:
>
> >> • There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of
> >> human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
>
> > How can one have high confidence in something the basis of which they
> > refuse to discuss?
>
> Um, you're trying to tell us nobody is discussing global warming?

You're telling us your too dumb to understand my question?

[Steve]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:35:51 +0000 (UTC), 3149 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

Nobody of any consequence..

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:36:16 -0700, Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu>
wrote:

Yes. Note that the IPCC assessed the scientific consensus on the
subject: they did not some how create it.


--
"Odd that many who would otherwise embrace the fruits and discoveries
of science will disagree strongly when research findings conflict with
their politics or religion." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

[James]

"3149 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:k15pln$5ap$1...@dont-email.me

co2 is the evil one in the climate debate. How come no one can prove it
is?

[Pro Nuclear Republicans !!]

On Aug 23, 10:53 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
> "3149 Dead" <d...@gone.com> wrote in message

Top scientists proved that long ago.

[Claudius Denk]

On Aug 23, 10:35 am, 3149 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:38:27 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2:36 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
> >> The solid scientific consensus on climate change -2 hours ago
>
> >> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said:
>
> >> "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,
>
> > If it is unequivocal then why are you equivocating?
>
> >> as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air
> >> and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising
> >> global average sea level."
>
> > Isn't this basically the same argument people have to the existence of
> > God?
>
> >> Also:
>
> >> "Global GHG (greenhouse gas)
>
> > The tern "greenhouse gas" is a ethereal notion.  Nobody knows how to
> > define it or measure it.
>
> We know exactly what greenhouse gases are.  Water vapour, carbon dioxide
> and methane are the best-known, and their properties are exactly
> understoon.

Show us the experimental data/evidence or go away.

> >> emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial
> >> times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004. Global
> >> atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane) and
> >> N2O (nitrous oxide) have increased markedly as a result of human
> >> activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
> >> determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years."
>
> > These assertions are inconsequential in light of the fact that CO2
> > forcing is immeasurable.
>
> Except that we ARE measuring it.

Put up or shut up.

> >> And:
>
> >> "The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far
> >> the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2
> >> concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use."
>
> >> While some argue that there is still a debate among the world's major
> >> climate scientists regarding the cause of global warming, the IPCC
> >> states this:
>
> >> • There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of
> >> human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
>
> > How can one have high confidence in something the basis of which they
> > refuse to discuss?
>
> Um, you're trying to tell us nobody is discussing global warming?

It's surreal how you whackjobs expect us to debate your imagination.

[Claudius Denk]

On Aug 23, 3:19 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:36:16 -0700, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu>

Mr Tyson won't debate the subject. What does this tell us? This guy
has a platform through which he can speak to the whole world on any
scientific subject he chooses. Yet he won't debate AGW. All he
contributes are soundbites insinuating the close mindedness of
opponents to AGW. These are not the actions of a scientist who is
confident in his understanding. This is evasiveness.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Not one, but TWO ignorant dishonest "cap and trade" tax apologists!

Our cup runneth over!

[Verda Morrell]

Frauds are Exposed:

alt.politics IP Search Results File: C:\AP_Data\Q_65.88.88.58.txt
08/18/2012

This search result file generated by DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
---------------------------------------------------------------

Hokey <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.58
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com>|65.88.88.58

Search start: Sat 8/18/2012 10:19:39 PM - End: Sat 8/18/2012 10:19:40
PM
Rebuild: 8/18/12

---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com

alt.politics IP Search Results File: C:\AP_Data\Q_65.88.88.252.txt
08/18/2012

This search result file generated by DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
---------------------------------------------------------------

Barbarian Mutual <barbarianfina...@yahoo.com>|65.88.88.252
Basement Bandy <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.252
Hokey <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.252
Needtuffr WikiL <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.252
Republiphilia <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.252
Repubs Lost Both Wars <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.252
Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.252
repukeDENIEDsenate <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.252
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com>|65.88.88.252

Search start: Sat 8/18/2012 10:20:13 PM - End: Sat 8/18/2012 10:20:16
PM
Rebuild: 8/18/12

---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com


alt.politics IP Search Results File: C:\AP_Data\Q_65.88.88.45.txt
08/18/2012

This search result file generated by DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
---------------------------------------------------------------

Barbarian Mutual <barbarianfina...@yahoo.com>|65.88.88.45
Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars <walter_...@post.com>|65.88.88.45
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com>|65.88.88.45

Search start: Sat 8/18/2012 10:21:04 PM - End: Sat 8/18/2012 10:21:05
PM
Rebuild: 8/18/12

---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com

alt.politics IP Search Results File: C:\AP_Data\Q_12.40.220.253.txt
08/18/2012

This search result file generated by DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
---------------------------------------------------------------

Barbarian Mutual <barbarianfina...@yahoo.com>|12.40.220.253
Basement Bandy <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
find WMD yet Repubs? <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
fuxnoise <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
hokey <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
Needtuffr WikiL <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
Pro Nuclear Republicans !! <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
Repub Lost Both Wars <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
Repubs Lost Both Wars <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
repukeDENIEDsenate <walter_...@post.com>|12.40.220.253
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com>|12.40.220.253

Search start: Sat 8/18/2012 10:22:07 PM - End: Sat 8/18/2012 10:22:08
PM
Rebuild: 8/18/12

---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com

alt.politics IP Search Results File: C:\AP_Data\Q_207.159.196.253.txt
08/18/2012

This search result file generated by DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
---------------------------------------------------------------

Barbarian Mutual
<barbarianfina...@yahoo.com>|207.159.196.253
Basement Bandy <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
find WMD yet Repubs? <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
fuxnoise <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Hokey <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Needtuffr WikiL <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Pro Nuclear Republicans !! <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Repub Lost Both Wars <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Republiphilia <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Repubs Lost Both Wars <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
repugliars <walter_...@post.com>|207.159.196.253
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com>|207.159.196.253

Search start: Sat 8/18/2012 10:23:16 PM - End: Sat 8/18/2012 10:23:19
PM
Rebuild: 8/18/12

---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com

alt.politics IP Search Results File: C:\AP_Data\Q_12.199.96.253.txt
08/18/2012

This search result file generated by DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
---------------------------------------------------------------

Barbarian Mutual <barbarianfina...@yahoo.com>|12.199.96.253
Basement Bandy <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
find WMD yet Repubs? <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
fuxnoise <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Hokey <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
my fake smile <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Needtuffr WikiL <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Pro Nuclear Republicans !! <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Repub Lost Both Wars <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Republiphilia <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Repubs Lost Both Wars <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
repukeDENIEDsenate <walter_...@post.com>|12.199.96.253
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com>|12.199.96.253

Search start: Sat 8/18/2012 10:23:53 PM - End: Sat 8/18/2012 10:23:54
PM
Rebuild: 8/18/12

---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright© 2010-2012 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com

NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.199.96.253
Latitude: 40.7616 Longitude: -73.7949
Host: ns2.queenslibrary.org

http://www.queenslibrary.org/

"The Queens Library, also known as the Queens Borough Public Library,
is the public library for the Borough of Queens and one of three
library systems serving New York City."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Library

====================

From: "Serious_slander_office at Yahuww !!!" <walter_...@post.com>
From: Republiphilia <walter_...@post.com>
From: Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.219.144.53

23-02 49th Ave
Queens, NY 11101

At this address:

Bridgedale LLC
Frommer Lawrence & Haug
Mayo Studios Inc
N Y City Housing Authority
Vector Media

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=40.7423++-73.9469&sll=40.679857,-74.004807&sspn=0.007193,0.018668&g=40.6755+-74.0047&ie=UTF8&ll=40.741863,-73.945798&spn=0.000229,0.000583&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.741863,-73.945798&panoid=q6J2dpwqXBxWoz3Ns5Hluw&cbp=12,161.38,,0,-0.95

http://tinyurl.com/25y3hh3

Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/

[alanm...@yahoo.com]

On Aug 23, 9:04 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
>  in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Re: The solid Scientific
> Consensus on climate change -2 hours ago;
>   On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:02:21 +0000 (UTC), 3149 Dead wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:39:51 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 7:09 am, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> . . . why are you wasting CO2 operating a computer when you could be
> > >> going around vandalizing power plants in an effort to save the world by
> > >> putting us back in the middle ages?
> > >> - A. McIntire
>
> > > Let's not give these whackjobs any ideas.
>
> > Not one, but TWO ignorant, paranoid corporate apologists!
>
> > Our cup runneth over!
>
> Typical "logic" of science deniers.
> There is none, it's all feelsgoodism,
> kneejerkism, and free talk show "education."
>

My point exactly. You claim belief in CAGW, yet you continue
wasting energy, doing nothing to fight CAGW. Simple "feelgoodism"
preaching to the heathens is all that's needed to save your CAGW
souls- A. McIntire

[alanm...@yahoo.com]

On Aug 25, 6:51 am, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

sorry, I posted in the wrong place