“Before we can even begin debate on climate change, we must investigate the numerous allegations that our federal scientists are being constrained from conveying their research findings and conclusions,” Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said recently. He said that allegations have included denying federal scientists the right to speak, changing their findings, and denying the release of their work.
With whole villages along Alaska’s western coast dropping into the ocean and satellite photos of massive chunks of sea ice breaking loose, attempts to keep scientists mum on the severity of climate change are futile. Why not put the hard science out there so that real solutions can be found?
Posted by Patrice Hein
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
82 Comments
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1171620847309210.xml&coll=2
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
Look at the above for evidence that warming, itself, might not be happening, and might not be so bad if it is. Also, it is probably not caused by man if it is really happening.
Look to these posts, below, for the way global warming SKEPTICS are treated:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm
I think it is wrong to silence views on either side of this issue, but much of the bad science and political pandering and stifling of debate has been on the part of the global warming alarmists.
Again, this is what you must prove BEFORE any political action is taken:
1.) Is global warming really happening?2.) Is man the cause of global warming, or is it a natural event?3.) Can man stop any warming that might happen?4.) Is the cost of any action worth the net result of any action that we do take? (Into this equation the very real question must be asked, “is warming really harmful?”5.) Can the U.S. reasonably stop global warming on its own? If global action is required, how will banning carbon by treaty be any more successful than banning illegal drugs by treaty? Or controlling weapons? Will we go to war to enforce carbon bans? (No, of course, which means they will be ignored more often than bans on other things.)
In the past, most of my posts on this subject have started with element #1 of YOUR burden of proof.
Let us skip to element #5 this time: If the USA effectively reduces demand for carbon fuels, we will stabelize or reduce world demand, reducing world prices.
A good portion of the world lives in poverty, freezes in the winter and dies of heat stroke in the summer. They want fuel to catch their food or pland their food, fuel to harvest their food or cook their food, fuel to heat or cool their huts.Now there fuel will be cheaper due to the American “carbon tax” and they will consume more fuel than they would have otherwise.Supply and demand.No net change in carbon use!
Congress won’t ever pass anything like Kyoto, they didnt do it under Clinton, when predictions were worse than they are now from the alarmists. (That is right, the recent UN report actually reduced predictions of warming, sea level rises, etc.)By the way, even those who supported Kyoto admitted that it would have very limited affect/effect on total “green house gases.”It wont happen folks.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html
Nature will correct itself, the ice at the South Pole is growing, not shrinking!
Econ 101, point well made. Yes, the UN’s latest report DID present a REDUCED scenario from earlier reports, but the scientists that are speaking out against the GW bandwagon, aren’t getting much press. Even more interesting is the fact that temps in the Antartic did NOT reflect what scientists predicted they would.—————”“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.
“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.
Last year, Bromwich’s research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn’t increased in the last 50 years. “What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down,” he said.——————–
rest here:http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html
—————-”
Yawn !!
I don’t believe in global warming. The weather has always cycled. It has 5 year, 10 year, 100 year and even 500 year cycles. Did you know that it was much hotter and much drier in the 1930s than it is now? Ask anybody that was farming back then! It is just like that big “hole in the ozone” scare of a few years ago- bunk!
From Paul’s link: “The thickening of the eastern ice sheet should not be seen as a long-term protection against a rise in sea level, warns Vaughan.”
” satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice – enough to reduce the oceans’ rise by 0.12 millimetres per year. ”
“sea level is currently rising at about 1.8 millimetres per year, largely through melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as a result of global warming”
In other words – we have a TEMPORARY reduction in the rate of sea level rise of a few %. Hardly the reversal that Paul claims.
I am all in favor of GSheridan and Paul Rossell warming up their piece of the earth, but would they kindly not touch mine? Thanks.
Don’t confuse those folks with facts, Ben, it just annoys them.
Many years ago when I was on CPO I voted against allowing construction of a facility next to Dillons at Central and Maize Roads. My reason: it would flood (Cowskin). I was told I was an idiot; the engineers had figured everything out. (After all, what does a geologist know anyway?). When they were evacuating the residents by boat I laughed; I was then accused of being ‘ungracious’ about it.
In not too many years this history will repeat; however the consequences will be MUCH worse.
Paul?
Absolutely we should go to war to enforce carbon restriction.
I will go you one further.
When it finally becomes undeniably clear that global climate change is happening and that human activity is causing it? I think that fossil fuels shills like you and GSheridan and others should be prosecucted for crimes against humanity.Burn down the planet to protect your portfolio. You sicken me.
War? Nuclear war! Just Nuke the bastards until the ‘nuclear winter’ compensates for the global warming!
Problem solved.
Hank
Nature will compensate, by ridding itself of the perps.
Regardless — since the gas crisis of the 70s, virtually every politician has promised to work to find more efficient / cleaner energy sources and rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. Will we continue to have to wage war in order to install democracies that will sell us oil? Why can we find almost a trillion dollars to wage war and very little to actually accomplish something to make us energy independent.
Too bad paulie the shillie didnt advocate such caution, research, and undeniable proof before we went to war in iraq.
IOOIYAR
Oops. IOKIYAR
Ken – “Will we continue to have to wage war in order to install democracies that will sell us oil?”
No, we install DICTATORS who will sell us the oil.
JR wants those who express opinions that differ from his on Global Warming to be prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity.
Yet he reserves the right to speak out, on a regular basis, against the United States and her policy abroad.
Hypocritical moralizing, anyone?
Ben — Good Answer .. then we can sell them guns and stuff — so it becomes win win — gotta love it
You know someone has no credibility when they start citing the discredit Moonie press to support their position. It’s the same publication that just fabricates Lincoln quotes on a whim.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
It’s CHEAPER to reduce carbon emissions.
‘Let’s set the eyes of Texas on efficiencyIf state thinks big, it beats coal’http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4561108.html“The fastest, cleanest, least expensive way to ensure Texas has the power it needs is for TXU and other utilities to help their customers lighten the load in the first place. That means a comprehensive strategy to invest in money-saving energy efficiency initiatives that cut customers’ bills and reduce emissions instead of saddling them with billions of dollars in debt to build old-school generators.”
and Ken,
Dont forget, turn against us like Saddam did…
We supplied him “guns and stuff” against Iran, than turned around and started Gulf War 1.
GSheridan,
Why Didn’t you quote Browwich’s key points? Ozone depletion, due to human-added CFC’s.
http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html” Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. “If you have less ozone, there’s less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn’t warm as much.”
That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.
“In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion,” he said. “The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic.”
Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
“It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations,” he said. “
PAUL F. ROSELL,
Re Svensmark’s cosmic rays theory in your ‘two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate’ link.
Please EXPLAIN how cosmic rays CAUSED the warming of the last decade, when NO trend has been observed.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/nigel-calder-in-the-times/“Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/climax.tab since 1953 and show no long term trend.
No trend = no explanation for current changes.”
Ben,
“In other words – we have a TEMPORARY reduction in the rate of sea level rise of a few %. Hardly the reversal that Paul claims.”
Paul F. Rosell is only a financial planner — you can’t expect him to be able to understand math. ;)
Also, an increase of snowfall in Antarctica was predicted by climate change models — due to more evaporation from the oceans.
Yes, global warming is really happening, by what reasons, it may never be understood.We have the evidence and photos by satellites and cameras on changes to the ice glaziers that have never occurred and it is shrinking away.But why focus so much on that question, how about directing our energy on preparation for the changes.Does anyone have a boat that has snow tracks and protect the riders from the hot searing sun or from a super cold blast?
Here’s what our nation’s ultimate authority has to say on this subject:http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaTools/mediaHolder.php?id=1147&pID=10519
Jed,
That Will Ferrell video at transbuddha is FUNNY. But unfortunately, it’s pretty close to the truth.
Wiseman,
IPCC’s large group of international climate scientists believe there’s a 90% to 95% chance that humans ARE causing global warming — up from 60% in 2001.
On the other side is junk, like Paul F. Rosell’s guy Svensmark, pushing cosmic rays.
The debate is finished on IF humans are causing GW — the question now is how to stop it, especially re avoiding the “tipping point”.
Here’s a little experiment I suggest for all who doubt the consequences of global warming.
Find in or near your home a closed model of the Earth’s atmosphere, a place with roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, a little bit of water vapor and trace amounts of, say Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, and Hydrogen. Your garage is a perfect location.
Now, come up with something that might recreate the last hundred and fifty years or so of burning coal, wood, and petroleum that generally constitutes the years of the Industrial Revolution. An internal combustion engine, for example. Got a car in your garage? Perfect. Your little experiment is set.
Get in your car and start the engine and contemplate how manmade consumption of carbon-based fuels has no effect on the earth’s atmosphere.
Here’s the report Sen. Inouye mentioned in the header link.
‘Scientific Integrity — Atmosphere of PressurePolitical Interference in Federal Climate Science’http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/atmosphere-of-pressure.html
Not only do we have glaciers breaking off and hurricanes in the extreme, the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Why? Warming of the oceans.
If the reef dies, so does the sea life that exists around it.
But of course there’s no global warming…
Global warming. Hilarious. Reading these blogs is much like reading the comics….always good for a few laughs but not to be taken seriously.
Hey SOB,
Read this link. It’s HILARIOUS, and will make you ROFLOL!
‘Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html“In a NASA study, scientists have concluded that when Earth’s climate warms, there is a reduction in the ocean’s primary food supply. This poses a potential threat to fisheries and ecosystems.”
It’s also a positive feedback: less phytoplankton = less CO2 absorbed by ocean = more warming = less phytoplankton …
What’s NASA doing writing an ocean theory?
Some claim that journalists, themselves, are the culprits behind the massive push to buy into the Global Warming idea:
[quote]“Increasingly, not just climate scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in 2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up.
There is something quite horrible about the complete failure of America’s journalists to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of having deliberately falsified data.
Too many journalists have remained steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.”[end quote]
————–
Rest of the story:
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
SOB,
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/index.html“The more we know about the universe, the more we learn about ourselves.From satellites monitoring our own planet’s resources to orbiting observatories scanning deep space, every NASA mission embodies the spirit of discovery.
GSheridan you forgot your footnote!
*GSheridan is the daughter of the President of a strip mine. She seems to be personally vested in the fossil fuels industry since she recently advocated construction of a coal fired generating plant for which she could demonstrate no power grid need.
Ya know what’s telling?
The global warming deniars started out denying there was any warming AT ALL.
NOW they admit the warming. They can find 685 reasons FOR it. As long as it isn’t anything to do with human energy use.
Keep shilling, JR. You have disputed ONE part of the article.
You think attacking me makes you correct, but it doesn’t. It just makes you a dipshit.
And what’s YOUR footnote, JR – that you spend 24 hours a day here and collect a welfare, or disability check, for your efforts?
J R,
What’s really FUNNY is GSheridan posted Alan Caruba’s BS claim: “a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing opposition to the theory of Global Warming.”
One of those 60 was a coal union spokesperson. ROFLMAO!!!
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1095“Courtney was a technical editor for CoalTrans International,..”
Desmogblog has a database on some of the other “60″ — NOT what I’d call “prominent scientists”.
Art Robinson is a 2-for-1, also did the Oregon Petition.. and Fred Sietz? Hahahahahaha…..
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067 “A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition.”
Did I hit a nerve?
Wahhhhhh!
Hey “lady” I aint the one who is in here posting at 3 AM.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
And no I am on no form of public assistance.
My posts are from my conscience, not my wallet.
Rather – did I hit a nerve?
You’re here most of the day. So we know you don’t work.
You’re right about not posting from your wallet – you’re posting from MY wallet.
Fess up – you’re a dead beat.
GSheridan’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Caruba is a public relations advisor who writes very odd columns for right-wing news, and websites.
Caruba: “Too many journalists have remained steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting…”
Should I believe GSheridan’s source, or NASA? I think rational people would chose NASA.
‘Arctic sea ice on the wane: Now what?’http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_seaice.html“However, sea ice growth and melt are no longer in the same balance, and the ice is disappearing.”
Another one of GSheridan’s 60 “prominent” scientists who opposes the GW idea.
Robert H. Essenhigh = Combustion Researcherhttp://www.desmogblog.com/node/1315“For example, Essenhigh has studied the effect of chemical kinetics on the rate of coal combustion.”
What did I say that was a lie GSheridan?
None of your last 3 detonations refute anything I or cosmos have posted.
I call you a shill for energy. You don’t dispute it.
‘Cause ya can’t!
Go ahead and call me names. Drool and swing from the chandelier.
I like when you are silly better than when you’re shilly :)
GSheridan,
“… but the scientists that are speaking out against the GW bandwagon, aren’t getting much press.”
You don’t seem to understand the STRATEGY that YOUR side has to use.
Your side does NOT want a lot of “press”, because they do NOT have the science, data, observations, etc. on their side.
So instead they started anti-AGW groups in the late 1980’s, funded by fossil-energy and right-wing media, like Rev. Moon.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
They spread misinformation, spin, lies, pseudo-science, GW is “good” for us, etc.
Then people like you and Paul F. Rosell run around spreading their BS, in letters to editors, blogs, etc..
Your Caruba post is a textbook example — the bogus “60 scientists”, Arctic ice not melting, etc., CANNOT withstand even casual scrutiny.
The debate re AGW is over, but you just don’t realize it.
GSheridanYou have to be subject to change because the world is constantly changing; if you do not want to change then the changes in world will leave you behind.
Two more of GSheridan’s 60 “prominent scientists expressing opposition to the theory of Global Warming.”
Vincent Gray = Coal Researcherhttp://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215
David Wojick = Coal Industry Consultanthttp://www.desmogblog.com/node/1115
There’s something VERY “odd” about her 60 “prominent scientists”.
Getting back to the subject, this is from 2004:”In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins, ‘Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences…. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.’”
“Let us offer more examples of our own. The Department of Health and Human Services deleted information from its Web sites that runs contrary to the president’s preference for “abstinence only” sex education programs. The Office of Foreign Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from “hostile nations” to be published in the U.S., so some scientific journals will no longer consider submissions from them. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed overhauling peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations–in effect, industry scientists would get to approve what research is conducted by the EPA.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001E02A-A14A-1084-983483414B7F0000
This administration’s ideological suppression of science is well-documented.
P.S. Interesting, Sherry, that when JR mentions something that might, just might, affect your objectivity, instead of defending yourself, you launch a pointless ad hom against him.
Quite amusing.
Global Warming Nazis – caught in yet another lie:—————”Our alarmist friends have recently written that global warming may be responsible for a declining moose population in northeastern Minnesota. Consulting the Minnesota DNR Web site yields a current DNR moose population research summary. The fact is that moose populations in northeastern Minnesota have increased by 12 percent from 2005 to 2006. The moose population has experienced a full 110 percent increase from 1998 through 2006. We have read about drowning polar bears, with no supporting evidence. In fact, according to polar bear biologist Mitchell Taylor, the majority of the world’s polar bear populations are either stable or on the rise. Facts are stubborn things. Why were we told these lies? Do they do this with every “statistic” they wildly throw out there? We must not trust them anymore.”———–
http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2007/02/16/opinion/letters/let1.txt
GSheridan – caught yet AGAIN spreading delusional denialist BS.
Winona OPINION: “We have read about drowning polar bears, with no supporting evidence.”
‘Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts’http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece
‘Drowning polar bears worry researchers’http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2246
My 6:30 PM post upthread, NASA’s ”Arctic sea ice on the wane: Now what?’”NSIDC scientist Mark Serreze said, “The reduction in summer sea ice is a bad omen for animals like the polar bear, which need sea ice for their survival.” ”
Winona OPINION: “You may have noticed that water vapor is never mentioned in their arguments,”
Water vapor *IS* included in climate research, as a constant — or worse, as a postive feedback that will INCREASE warming.Leaving water vapor out = very cold.
‘Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
See IPCC links in comment 1,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133
Winona OPINION: “A large majority of genuine scientists believe that catastrophic man-made global warming is a hoax.”
Names please. That bogus Oregon Petition again? The 60 “prominent scientists”(sic) with ties to coal, etc.?
GSheridan, thank you for proving my earlier point re your strategy.
GSheridan’s Winona OPINION: “Our alarmist friends have recently written that global warming may be responsible for a declining moose population in northeastern Minnesota.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service = “alarmist”?
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Agassiz/moose.htmlhttp://www.fws.gov/midwest/Agassiz/moosesite/agassiz_2005_moose_summary_report.pdf“The study concluded that climatic changes combined with increases in deer numbers and parasite transmission rates may have rendered Northwest Minnesota inhospitable to moose. …Until the climatic factors that are making the moose range shrink to the North are reversed we will probably see fewer moose in Northwest Minnesota.”
Your efforts are appreciated, Cosmos, but, given the repetition we’re seeing across threads (e.g., how many times must the same CO2 lie be debunked?), you have to be feeling like Sisyphus.
Oh well. That rock is our future. Thanks!
Oops, misspoke.Pleases/CO2/watervapor
Thx.
Oops, misspoke.Pleases/CO2/watervapor
Thx.
Hmmm, Cosmos…. maybe it’s not CO2 at all.
————–”In light of these many diverse observations, Svensmark concludes “it now seems clear that stellar winds and magnetism are crucial factors in the origin and viability of life on wet earth-like planets,” as are “ever-changing galactic environments and star-formation rates.” And within this expansive context of both space and time, humanity’s emissions of CO2 literally fade away into climatic insignificance.”————-
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N8/EDIT.jsp
So I hear that “global warming” is largely due to cattle farts. I have the solution:
Feed the cattle Beano.
No, SOB, not farting – craping.
Beano wont stop that.
Corks, maybe?
Take a look at this:http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html
BTW – since I don’t eat meat – that must mean I’m doing MORE than anyone else here to help the cause .
Yuppers, that’s me.Helpful to a fault.
Well it seems it is the gas, the crap and all the processing machinery. Damn big beef industry. They’re probably making obscene profits too!
Beef…that sounds good. I think I’ll fire up the charcoal grill tonight and cook some up.
Nobody takes your links seriously anymore GSheridan.
Don’t do it, SOB. You’ll be contributing to Global Warming/Armageddon.
Just open a can of Pork -n- Beans and sit by the grill to warm yourself up.
On second thought – those beans might just contribute to the Methane effect. You better make it a banana. You digest bananas okay, don’t you?
Just to make sure I’m doing my part in this destruction of the planet, which I get accused of daily, I think I’ll go out and spray a can of aerosol hairspray into the air. Or – it’s a nice day so perhaps I’ll put my can on the grill, since I don’t have a steak for that purpose, and hide behind the tree until it explodes in one big CFC cloud.
That’ll make me feel good.
And it’ll give JR and a boy named Tracy something to whine about.
No one has taken Junior seriously for a long time.
Maybe grill some nice Alar-apples too.
Well GS, you’re just a hateful ol’ hag, ain’t ya’?Hell, I’d bet ya’ kick dogs and make fun of disabled people too.
Don’t project your problem on me.The problem being your hateful tone and tenor, along with your constant bitching about practically everything.You’re even offended at the suggestion that you’re offended.Oh, and ……..BILL CLINTON!BILL CLINTON!
Now quit acting like the playground bully.Get a life.Be pro something instead of anti-everything!
How about a new moniker queenie?VUBOQ.Vicious. Unrepentant. Bitter. Old. Queen.
HAVE A NICE DAY!
I mean what the f*#k VUBOQ?
I hadn’t even commented on this thread when you come in and call me a whiner.
Try killing sumpin’ and eat it’s guts out.Primal scream therapy?Maybe you need female viagra?Chill pills? (meatless)
Well I don’t know about Gsheridan, but I’ll be pro-things.
Pro-wealthPro-freedomPro-individualismPro-independance
And, Professional.
ROFLMAO
But here you are, Tracy-boy, right on cue. Can I call ‘em, or can I call ‘em?
I’m laughing and having a gay old time, and you’re the one bitching, moaning, and whining……
Call 1-800-WHOGIVESASHIT
Vicious?When need be.
Unrepentant?Hell yeah.
Bitter?Not really.
Old?Not yet.
Queen?Hmmmmm…..I’ll have to think about that one.
Now let’s give Tracy-boy a new moniker. Turn about being fair play and all.
How about LEW ?
Lazy, Effeminate, Waste of skin
Tracy-LEW.
I like it.
You do, too.
I like it.Rhymes with tracy sue.
SOB, I’ PRO, too.
Pro-CapitalistPro-MotivationPro-Strong Work EthicPro-Merit-based employment
And the biggie,
PRO – UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
You are one bitter ol bitch ain’t ya’?
VOBUQ, you like me after all.I’m everything you just listed.Weeeeeeee!!!!!
How could I have left out Pro-USA? Damnit. My mistake.
“SOB” = KSGolfnut = s o b
GSheridan<—-shill for fossil fuels : (
“SOB” = KSGolfnut = s o b
GSheridan<—-shill for fossil fuels : (
Yep, VUBOQ and Balls are some real pros alright.
Popup=in error
Thank God for fossil fuels! We’d be livin’ like the Injuns still without them.
GSheridan,
Thank you for AGAIN proving that I’m CORRECT about the strategy that your side is FORCED to use.
Your link, co2science.org, is run by the Idso’s,http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html“Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.”More at,’FACTSHEET: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide…’http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
Svensmark’s bogus cosmic ray theory AGAIN, after Paul F. Rosell used it in the 1st post of this thread?
Answer my question that Paul F. Rosell did NOT answer –HOW did cosmic rays cause the warming the last decade, when there has been NO trend (change) in cosmic rays?
Info at 12:55 PM yesterday,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/too_late_to_hid.html#comment-60927070
GSheridan,
“No, SOB, not farting – craping.”
Wrong again, altho it’s mainly from burping (tech term is eructation).
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html“3. How can livestock methane emissions be reduced?Cattle emit methane through a digestive process that is unique to ruminant animals called enteric fermentation. Since methane represents a loss of carbon from the rumen and therefore an unproductive use of dietary energy, scientists have been looking for ways to suppress its production.”
Stellar work as usual cosmos. GSheridan? You forgot PRO stitute for fossil fuels. Holy cow Tracy! Gshilly takes a wild, unprovoked shot at you…ona thread you are not posting… You respond… And she goes Vesuvius! COULD be love? Ewwwww.
Rage, and J R,
Thank you… but it doesn’t take much effort, or time.
I put a lot of the links, etc in a well organized text file — and mostly do copy/pastes whenever GSheridan, Paul F. Rosell, et al, make their brain-dead posts.
Also, their idiotic posts prompt more research, which is educational.
For example, from one of GSheridan’s stupid posts today, I learned that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that climate change may be causing a decrease of moose in Northwest Minnesota.
I’ve added that to my text file. That’s both a ;) … and a :( , for what humans have done, and continue doing to our ONLY Earth.
Doesn’t Iran have a bit of oil as well? Bush has history of not being a great businessman so when the rest of the world cuts wayyyyyyy back on gas usage what will america do? Now that Bush in investing so many dollars in mideast oil instead of becoming the world leader in alternative energy.
Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent …